4 ms·

> in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. Although, I respect the argument you have made here, you may find tha

> in the US, the accepted solution for speech you disagree with is more speech, not less. Although, I respect the argument you have made here, you may find that this is a cultural difference between the US and the EU. In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think about the message Fox News is sending out, they control the message that people hear. In general, the media controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way are their opponents able to speak? A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted control over what speech people actually get to hear. This happens on scales large and small - it's notable that cults are protected by the First Amendment. And, this is the public's loss. It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least we can prevent a television station or media baron or cult leader from broadcasting hate speech.

stvswn 11y ago
Are you suggesting that Fox News should be censored? And how do you decide what is a cult vs. what is a religion? "Hate speech," btw, has no legal definition in the US judicial system. The term doesn't exist in First Amendment jurisprudence. How does the EU define it? I'm quite happy to be thus reminded of our freedoms in the U.S.; Lord help us if we go down this route.
autokad 11y ago
"powerful elites have unrestricted control over what speech people actually get to hear" they are called college professors.
mikerichards 11y ago
Whatever you might think about the message Fox News is sending out, they control the message that people hear Like I control the message that my co-worker or anybody else hears when I'm speaking to them? In what way are their opponents able to speak? As in opponents, you mean MSNBC, CNN, all the networks, all the major newspapers, all the cultural HBO shows, and tens of thousands of websites?
maxlybbert 11y ago
I recognize it's a cultural difference. Which, to be honest, was the reason I qualified the statement as "in the US, ..." > In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think > about the message Fox News is sending out, they control > the message that people hear. In general, the media > controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets > are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way > are their opponents able to speak? I would consider that more a question of Freedom of the Press, although it's certainly intertwined with Freedom of Speech. And there's an old quote that "Freedom of the Press only applies to people who have one [a press]." Luckily, it's been getting cheaper to get a message out to, potentially, millions of people. Occasionally, bloggers embarrass professional reporters. > A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted > control over what speech people actually get to hear. ... > > It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least > we can prevent a television station or media baron or > cult leader from broadcasting hate speech. I don't think the "at least" is something to be happy with. I realize that the governments currently running France, Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc. are more trustworthy than, say, the Russian government. But you have something of a guarantee that -- no matter how much you trust your current government -- eventually politicians you don't trust will take control. If a government has the authority to punish media owners or reporters, then eventually that authority will be abused.

stvswn 11y ago

Are you suggesting that Fox News should be censored? And how do you decide what is a cult vs. what is a religion? "Hate speech," btw, has no legal definition in the US judicial system. The term doesn't exist in First Amendment jurisprudence. How does the EU define it? I'm quite happy to be thus reminded of our freedoms in the U.S.; Lord help us if we go down this route.

autokad 11y ago

"powerful elites have unrestricted control over what speech people actually get to hear" they are called college professors.

mikerichards 11y ago

Whatever you might think about the message Fox News is sending out, they control the message that people hear Like I control the message that my co-worker or anybody else hears when I'm speaking to them? In what way are their opponents able to speak? As in opponents, you mean MSNBC, CNN, all the networks, all the major newspapers, all the cultural HBO shows, and tens of thousands of websites?

maxlybbert 11y ago

I recognize it's a cultural difference. Which, to be honest, was the reason I qualified the statement as "in the US, ..." > In the US, you have Fox News. Whatever you might think > about the message Fox News is sending out, they control > the message that people hear. In general, the media > controls the narrative. A small number of media outlets > are the real beneficiaries of free speech. In what way > are their opponents able to speak? I would consider that more a question of Freedom of the Press, although it's certainly intertwined with Freedom of Speech. And there's an old quote that "Freedom of the Press only applies to people who have one [a press]." Luckily, it's been getting cheaper to get a message out to, potentially, millions of people. Occasionally, bloggers embarrass professional reporters. > A small number of powerful elites have unrestricted > control over what speech people actually get to hear. ... > > It's not too much better than that in the EU but at least > we can prevent a television station or media baron or > cult leader from broadcasting hate speech. I don't think the "at least" is something to be happy with. I realize that the governments currently running France, Germany, Britain, Switzerland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, etc. are more trustworthy than, say, the Russian government. But you have something of a guarantee that -- no matter how much you trust your current government -- eventually politicians you don't trust will take control. If a government has the authority to punish media owners or reporters, then eventually that authority will be abused.