The "Petition Against Fox" makes us look bad.

[FrodosPet]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026332618

So we have a petition which completely disregards the truth about FCC jurisdiction in order to attack Faux News for being liars???

If the author of the petition reads this, please pull it. Apologize for the misunderstanding. Promote progressive's willingness to accept and integrate new and updated knowledge.

This is far from the worst thing in the world, but it just DOESN'T help. You are giving them cheap ammo against progressive ideals. You are turning Faux News into free speech martyrs. They are not the real victims in life, but they and their supporters will sure as hell use any opportunity they can to paint themselves as such.

[RandiFan1290]

1. It's driving you guys crazy!

[GGJohn]

4. Yeah, false info like that does tend to drive us crazy. eom.

[FrodosPet]

5. Yes, counterproductive actions drive me nuts

People gift wrapping talking points to use against progressives is very frustrating to long game players.

[Hutzpa]

13. Unfortunately, you don't come across as someone who understands long term game plan

nt.

[NuclearDem]

23. ...

[arcane1]

2. I generally don't like "take them off the air" drives, even when valid.

This one definitely isn't valid.

And you're correct: it's an open invitation for a "Lib'ruls are stupid" PR campaign.

[WillowTree]

3. Yes, but post #150 makes you look like a no-kiddin' comic genius!!

Thanks for the smiles. It was one of the few intentionally funny posts on that very long thread.

[FrodosPet]

46. Ya gotta laugh! Ya gotta dance! Ya gotta sing! Ya gotta smile!

It doesn't mean you don't care. It just means you have something to care about.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Nobody pays any attention to internet petitions anyhow,

but it's particularly fruitless to ask the FCC to do something where they have no jurisdiction.

[Fred Sanders]

7. Fox "might" play victim? That is their whole defence schtick! Fox must die.

[Kurska]

10. You really think the American people would support shutting down a major news network?

This proposal is censorship through and through. A complete affront to freedom of speech.

Yet those values don't seem to matter to everyone. They are more interested in engaging in partisan flights of fantasy.

[Fred Sanders]

14. Fox is a cancer - a racist, mysoginistic , treasonous propaganda tool of two men. Not news. Not free speech.

[Kurska]

15. No one is defending the merit of fox news.

But the fact remains they are a news organizations watched by millions of people. Trying to shut them down would be viewed as tyrannical and it would probably get the president impeached.

Yes this is a matter of free speech. Name a single free society that went around shutting down the main opposition news source.

[Fred Sanders]

26. Stop calling Fox a "news source". No one buys that..your whole defence of Fox is off the rails right there

News source. News hub. No matter how you put it there is no "news" on Fox.

[GGJohn]

16. The courts, whom I believe over you, disagree with you.

But we all know how you feel about free speech.

[Kurska]

8. Idiotic, it is pro-censorship.

And if the FCC did this it would reflect horribly on the democratic party. Honestly, it would probably cost us the next election. We'd be viewed as fascist crushers of freedom of speech.

Fox news is certainly a partisan bubble, but a lot of people on the left live in one too.

[Hutzpa]

9. You have got to be shitting me.

I had to rub my eyes few times just to make sure i was reading this on DU.

[Kurska]

11. So just because we're left-wing, we're supposed to support authoritarian attempts to silence

the right wing?

[Hutzpa]

17. Authoritarian attempt??

please don't use words just for the heck of it. Fox News has been broadcasting hate from the very day it was formed by Murdock, it is

about time, in fact this action imo is way 'f#*&^in' over due.

[Fred Sanders]

19. A petition to get Fox to stop lying and manufacturing lies and spreading fear and hate?

Not authoritarian. The opposite of.

[GGJohn]

22. No, it's a petition to have the FCC pull Fox News license,

something that Fox isn't required to have to broadcast on cable and where the FCC has no authority.

[GGJohn]

20. What action?

The FCC has no authority over Fox News, none, Fox broadcasts on cable, where FCC has no authority.

[Kurska]

21. Shutting down opposition new sources is authoritarian.

Sorry, it is. It is government censorship.

And it would be viewed as such by the majority of the American people and probably even by the vast majority of democrats.

[Fred Sanders]

24. Your main fault is that you think Fox is a "news hub". It is not. It never was, or will be.

[Kurska]

27. No matter how much you dislike it.

You don't personally get to decide what is or isn't a new organization and you don't get to decide who has a right to voice their opinion.

If you think the American people would for a moment tolerate a government that shuts down their biggest critics news organization, you're living on another planet.

[Fred Sanders]

28. It is not a personal thing. It is a fact. You think Fox is "news". You are wrong.

[Kurska]

29. No actually Fred your opinion is not fact.

Especially given that the vast majority of American people do not believe like you do and would not support what you propose to do. Fascists shut down opposition new sources, not democrats.

[Hutzpa]

39. I believe Fox had numerous opportunity to broadcast factual News

but chose not to, instead use their time on air to perpetuate hatred toward race, religion and gender. Maybe you can show me another News organisation that promotes hates with vengeance the way fox does.

[Kurska]

40. I'm not defending the merits of fox news

As a gay person, they have certainly spewed their face share of vitriol in my direction.

That said, nothing justifies shutting down news organizations. That is the hallmark of a tyrannical regime.

[Travis_0004]

33. Yeah. who gives a shit about the first amendment anyway.

[Hutzpa]

41. First amendments does not give you the right to use hateful words

toward another.

[GGJohn]

44. Whaaaaa? It most certainly does.

Show us the statute that makes it illegal to use hateful words towards another.
Bear in mind that this ain't Europe.

[Hutzpa]

51. Please try not to get the first amendment twisted

The first amendment guarantees you the right to a FREE SPEECH not HATEFUL SPEECH learn the difference before you and I can proceed with this conversation.

[GGJohn]

54. Again, show us the law that makes it illegal to use hateful speech towards another.

It may get you a busted nose or lip, but it won't get you in legal trouble.

[Codeine]

60. Hateful speech is part of free speech.

To state otherwise is pure fucking stupidity.

[GGJohn]

61. I'm still waiting for him/her to cite the law that says hate speech is illegal. eom.

[COLGATE4]

63. Absolutely right. nt

[Hutzpa]

65. Then why don't you use all your intelligennce gained

and go stand in front of the White House with a PA using all that first amendment rights to call for the assassination of anyone and see what happens, you might get the chance to come back here and tell me who the fucking idiot is.

[Throd]

66. You might not like the answer.

[GGJohn]

67. There is a federal law expressly forbidding threatening federal officials,

but there is no law forbidding hate speech.

I can walk up to you and call you all kinds of vile, racist names and it would be legal, it might get my lights punched out, but it wouldn't be illegal.
Hate speech is protected under the 1A whether or not you believe it.

[Codeine]

74. That's not even vaguely the topic being discussed

here, but you keep on moving those goalposts.

[Travis_0004]

71. The supreme court has allowed the kkk, flag burning etc.

So the 2nd absolutely allows hateful speach.

Plus, I dont want the government deciding what is hateful and what isnt. Buycott the advertisers on fox news, but I dont want to see the government shut them down.

[Skittles]

68. you are confusing what is free speech and what kind of speech may have repercussions

hate speech most certainly is included in free speech; however, there is nothing that says that free speech will not have consequences

[COLGATE4]

62. There is no prohibition under the First Amendment against

using, to use your term "hateful words". None.

[Oktober]

69. Did you find an asterisk on the Bill of Rights...

... that everyone else just overlooked?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances *

*unless that speech be deemed mean or hateful then all bets are off..

Stuff like this makes me wonder what kind of education people are receiving in basic American civics...

[WillowTree]

12. Why?

[GGJohn]

18. Reading what on DU?

The fact that this petition is asinine? Why is it asinine? Because Fox doesn't need a broadcast license on cable and the FCC has no authority with regards to cable broadcasting.

[Hutzpa]

47. Child please.

[GGJohn]

48. That the best you got?

Truly pathetic.
Can you refute anything I posted?

[Hutzpa]

52. Simple

Just had an epiphany.

[GGJohn]

55. IOW, you can't refute any of my post. eom.

[Hutzpa]

57. I don't need to

as I've just realize I'm having a conversation with a child therefore I don't feel the need to refute your post as it will be a complete waste of my time and bandwidth.

[GGJohn]

59. So all you have left are insults?

When one resorts to insults, that usually means that you've lost the debate and that's all that's left.

[GGJohn]

64. Hey, still waiting for you to cite the law that makes it illegal to use hateful words

towards another.

[pintobean]

73. This ranks right up there with

the E&E hosting fiasco at the beginning of DU3.

[tammywammy]

25. It makes the signers and promoters of the petition look stupid.

The FCC can't strip a broadcast license that doesn't exist.

[FrodosPet]

38. This is it right here!

We are attacking liars by using lies and trying to claim the moral high ground?

There are plenty of ways, in both the macro and the micro of communication, to go after Faux News using facts and an appeal to people's higher nature. But this is juvenile and instantly backfires on both accuracy and free speech grounds.

[Rex]

30. Wait...you are saying Foxnews does not distort the truth or create hoaxes?

REALLY?

[WillowTree]

32. No. They're saying that it's a stupid petition because the FCC has no authority to do what it asks.

[Rex]

34. Well the petition seems to think it DOES have the authority based on those conditions.

Dunno.

[GGJohn]

35. Well, then they're dumbasses,

the FCC has no authority over cable networks and cable networks don't need a license to broadcast.

[WillowTree]

36. The petition thinks? Really?

Apparently the author of the petition thinks the FCC has authority to regulate or license cable TV channels, but the FCC thinks otherwise. This is a direct quote from their web site

. "No, the FCC does not have the authority to censor programming."

See if you can find something on that site (www.fcc.gov) that indicates otherwise. If you do find it, please post a link.

[Rex]

37. You know what I meant smartass.

I said I dunno...geez, okay expert I'll take your word for it!

[Oktober]

70. That is what makes them dumb...

This isn't a philosophy question... How many angels on the head of a pin...

It has an answer...

[FrodosPet]

42. I am not saying that at all

NEWS absolutely should be fact driven. And yes, Faux News distorts or selectively uses facts. I wish they, and everyone else, had higher standards for reporting. And there is always the ultimate reality that it is impossible to get 100% of the facts 100% of the time. So how many inaccuracies are enough to pull a "news" organization's non-existent licenses?

What really bothers me on this particular petition is that it is asking to do something that is legally impossible and counter-productive to progressive ideals and image.

[Rex]

45. Hmmm...I wonder if anyone has informed the author of the petition

of the error of his/her ways. NOT being snarky here...just saying that if what you say is true he/she will be really embarrassed when they find out.

I thought cable news stations DID need a broadcasting license. Show what I know about the subject (not much apparently).

[MADem]

31. I don't believe in Communal Guilt. Don't like it? Don't sign it.

It doesn't make "me" look bad, because I haven't even clicked on the link.

If wingnuts are going to go after someone on a small political website because of a "petition" that someone puts up, they are really, really, REALLY in need of those things called "lives."

Fox News fans don't care for MSNBC, either--they love to make fun of Chris Matthews for his occasionally high-strung tirades (he is a Type 1 diabetic which contributes to those episodes, he doesn't always watch that as close as he should) and Rachel Maddow (they usually like to make not-so-clever "lesbian jokes" about her and then snuffle and snort in rather backward glee over their sharp commentaries and vicious insults).

In sum, they are stupid, and stupid is as stupid does. Why worry about people like that?

[tularetom]

43. Wait a minute, I don't think the FCC has any jurisdiction over Fox or any other cable outlet

Do they?

And you're right in saying that Fox will use this petition as an excuse to scream about their First Amendment rights being in danger.

On the other hand, it's still America and anybody who wants to can circulate a petition.

Fox is not doing anything illegal and neither are the people who circulated the petition.

So what's the BFD?

[FrodosPet]

56. Yes, anybody who wants to can circulate a petition.

And anyone who thinks that petition does more harm than good has a right to express that opinion.

For the reasons stated, I believe that this petition will have the opposite effect from what the author intended. It makes them stronger, not weaker. And so I am hoping I can discourage people from signing this petition. Not because I give a flying fig about Faux News. But to help, in my microscopic way, the image of progressivism as being based on the pursuit of truth and knowledge, not censorship and restriction and win-at-all-costs.

[Throd]

49. Hell yes! Let's set that precedent! What could go wrong?

Only those lying asshole meanies on the right will be silenced.

[WillowTree]

50. What could go wrong? Well.......

.......it could really seriously make the Left look foolish for petitioning the FCC.......again.......to do something they have repeatedly said that they have no authority to do. Because they don't.

Some people seem to believe that if they ask often enough, the facts will magically change to be what they want. Sadly, wishing won't make it so.

[Throd]

53. I'm more worried by the number of people willing to give that power to government.

Legalities aside, the willingness to cede such control to the Ministry of Opinion is disturbing.

[WillowTree]

58. That too. For sure.

[treestar]

72. It doesn't sound like it could be successful

due to the First Amendment.

It would be better to go against Fox, calling it just opinion and disagreeing with that opinion.

People are frustrated in that those with more money can reach more people, and a lot of people are convinced by what they hear on TV and don't know that the Koch brothers and Murdoch and the 1% manipulate them. Dealing with those people is frustrating. But there is no way to stop it from happening, except to try to convince people that because someone is on TV, it does not prove what they are saying is true. There's a cultural drag there when Walter Cronkite, et al, were trustable and would never report non-fact or even give opinions where it was supposed to be reporting.