FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

The Off-Topic forum for anything non-LDS related, such as sports or politics. Rated PG through PG-13.
User avatar
Doctor CamNC4Me
God
Posts: 8952
Joined: Wed Oct 28, 2020 2:04 am

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Doctor CamNC4Me »

That’s pretty damned rich coming from a literal secessionist and insurrection apologist, Xanax.

- Doc
Hugh Nibley claimed he bumped into Adolf Hitler, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Gertrude Stein, and the Grand Duke Vladimir Romanoff. Dishonesty is baked into Mormonism.
Hawkeye
2nd Counselor
Posts: 401
Joined: Tue Aug 03, 2021 1:37 pm

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Hawkeye »

But what you are doing above? That's not a defense of American values. It's partisan demonizing. It's also lazy regurgitation of taking points you learned from some outlet.

Think about what it is you stand for and ask yourself: Are these principles I can articulate? Or identities I feel are threatened?
Economic nationalism and an America first agenda is what the MAGA movement that Biden says needs to be exterminated was about. I'm not exactly sure how those principles are viewed as a threat to democracy. I'm not sure exactly what you mean you mean by "Democracy," when you say that MAGA is destroying American democracy. To me democracy based on the US constitution means more than just mob rule or 3 wolves and a sheep voting on what's for dinner. It protects the rights of political minorities as well. What Veritas is advocating is as far from constitutional as it gets. Democracy doesn't mean that the majority gets to silence the minority because they don't agree with them or think that building a wall and enforcing the border is immoral.

I stand for private property, worker's rights, and a general Abrahamic religion (not necessarily a particular sect). I believe in putting American citizens first and economic nationalism. I don't have a long list.
That’s pretty damned rich coming from a literal secessionist and insurrection apologist, Xanax.
We're talking about Fox News and MAGA Doc. Secession is not the position of MAGA nor the SAVE AMERICA movement that Biden seeks to outlaw, silence, and exterminate. The lefts view that because a couple hundred idiots who fought with police and walked around the capital building for a few hours somehow came close to ending the American republic or that it means it's necessary to censor and criminalize the 74 million people who voted for Donald Trump is ridiculous.

Biden tried to claim that he worked with mainstream Republicans but that's a lie. Look at how they portrayed Mitt Romney or even Dick Cheney before they became anti Trump allies. Romney was a racist who wanted to put black people back in chains and Dick Cheney was a war criminal.
Last edited by Hawkeye on Mon Sep 05, 2022 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
The best part about this is waiting four years to see how all the crazy apocalyptic predictions made by the fear mongering idiots in Right Wing media turned out to be painfully wrong...Gasoline would hit $10/gallon. Hyperinflation would ensue.
Veritas
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3752
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by honorentheos »

Hawkeye wrote:
Sun Sep 04, 2022 11:49 pm
Economic nationalism and an America first agenda is what the MAGA movement that Biden says needs to be exterminated was about.
Economic nationalism is a topic unto itself. I don't think it rises to the level of principle so much as being a policy. But if we take the second part above - America First - I think we need to confirm what your idea here entails.

How much do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements in relation to your views on economic nationalism as it ought to be practiced?

1) The US should rely on goods and services produced or provided within it's own borders. This includes limiting trade with other nations and exacting heavy tariffs on foreign goods and materials to allow domestic goods and services to outcompete them in the domestic market.

2) The US government should interfer with markets rather than rely on market forces to determine supply and pricing.

3) The US government should buy US goods and services to ensure there is demand and manage employment.

4) The US government should encourage or directly intervene to ensure US citizens are hired over migrant labor regardless of who is better qualified.

5) The US government should ignore paying debts to foreign debt holders in favor of payments to US citizens who hold bonds or other securities.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3752
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by honorentheos »

Hawkeye wrote:
Sun Sep 04, 2022 11:49 pm
Democracy doesn't mean that the majority gets to silence the minority because they don't agree with them or think that building a wall and enforcing the border is immoral.
The dispute over whether or not to build a wall on the border or how to enforce immigration law aren't the crisis issues.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9521
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Res Ipsa »

Vēritās wrote:
Sun Sep 04, 2022 8:52 am
Res Ipsa wrote:
Sun Sep 04, 2022 5:02 am

This demonstrates such a level of ignorance about the history and meaning of freedom of the press that it’s hard to know where to begin.
The only thing demonstrated is your own inability to come to gripes with what I've actually said. And Now after reading your long winded, delayed response, it appears you're shifting your ground.
Kevin, I'm going to painfully honest and blunt. The people that engaged in the online apologetic wars developed some of the most embarrassingly bad techniques of argument I've ever witnessed. And that's you in spades. You're so wrapped up in self-righteous outrage that you don't bother to take the time to read, think about, and understand what I said. Look at how you started out:

"long-winded" = detailed explanation. Freedom of the press is a complex issue with a long history that we should learn from. My response was long winded because it's clear you haven't tried to educate yourself on the Constitutional or practical implications of what you are proposing.

"delayed"= took time to think instead of rage posting. If that's some kind of defect, I'll live with it.

"shifting your ground" = modifying an argument in response to the other's argument. There is nothing wrong with modifying an argument in response to something the other person said. There is nothing wrong with presenting multiple different arguments in support of a position. That's how arguments are supposed to work. This one of the worst techniques developed in the online apologetic wars. Shifting the goalposts is a logical fallacy. But the mopologetic wars mangled the meaning of the fallacy beyond recognition. You guys turned the fallacy into "once you say something, it's frozen forever and if you ever say something contradictory or different, I win. Ha!) That's nuts.

Real argument is a back and forth. Having failed to make my point with one argument, I may switch to another. There is nothing wrong with that. It's only wrong if you say you're going to prove X, but you actually proved Y but act as if you proved X. Now, it's very possible that I shifted ground, although, of course, I can't really respond because you don't explain what the shift was or why the shift was somehow illegitimate. Another possibility is that you think I shifted ground only because you don't stop and think about what I'm actually saying.

So, your opening salvo was, frankly, irrelevant B.S.. Long form discussion is a strength of this format, not a weakness. if you want to argue in soundbites, Twitter is a good choice. Taking time to think instead just reacting is a virtue, not a vice. And there is nothing wrong with shifting ground in the course of a back and forth. In fact, never shifting ground shows closed mindedness.

The name of your logical fallacy is "well-poisoning"

I laid out exactly what my argument is at the end of my post. As so much of your post is non-responsive to my actual argument, I'm going to include process comments in my responses to point out the kind of apologetic wars BS you're using.
Res Ipsa wrote:First, there are “standards” in the form of well defined limits on freedom of the press.
Veritas wrote:Which is what I'm talking about. Those limits need to be increased and more importantly enforced. Media isn't supposed to be allowed to flat out lie, but they do and get away with it because of lax laws that put stringent burdens on those needing to prove libel or defamation. But your initial suggestion was that merely regulating standards for what's news is nothing short of "authoritarian," and then when I demonstrate how we regulate just about everything else in our society you switch gears and say "oh but you don't have a constitutional right to those things. Well either more regulation = authoritarianism or it doesn't. You clearly stated that it does, but refuse to apply such a ridiculous standard to everything else we regulate. And you keep disingenuously framing what I've argued as something as a complete censor of FOX News when all I have suggested is that they not be allowed to call themselves News. And you also know that no Constitutional right is absolute. Your hand waving dismissal of my "rant" ignores my clear examples of how we regulate the freedom of speech which is also Constitutional.
Here, you respond as if you understand what the "existing" standards are. But you don't, so you make a bunch of flat out wrong assertions. Can you correctly describe the standards, or, put another way, the constitutional limits on freedom of the press? That limits X, Y, and Z are constitutional doesn't mean that proposed limit A is either constitutional or even a good idea. "Constitutional rights have limits" isn't an argument. Of course they do. That doesn't answer the question of whether the government has the constitutional authority to force Fox to broadcast a disclaimer. Can you accurately describe the Constitutional limits on the government's power to dictate to the press what it must or cannot say? Can you find single case in which the government has been found to have the power to force the press to say something?

Try constructing an actual argument out of the above. You know, premise 1 and premise 2 and a therefore. That may help you turn what is string of assertions into an actual argument.

As to "switching gears," up to this point I didn't think it necessary to point out that the freedom of the press is guaranteed in the Constitution, while freedom to lawyer is not. More importantly, what I didn't can't even be fairly described as "shifting gears." Here's why:

Res Ipsa: I argue X.
Veritas: Your argument X is a bad argument because argument Y
Res Ipsa: Your argument Y is a bad argument because argument Z

There is absolutely nothing wrong with that last line. When I make an argument, I have no obligation to try and anticipate every possible counterargument and include that in my argument. If you make a bad counterargument, my argument that it's a bad counterargument is not shifting gears in my argument at all. It's part of the normal course of argument.

You really should just drop the "shifting gears" or even "moving the goalposts" concept from your bag of tricks, unless you learn what the actual logical fallacy is and learn to identify it correctly.
Veritas wrote:The fact is you called me an authoritarian for merely calling a spade a spade, because you said Fascists do that.
I'm going to go through this paragraph in detail, because it shows all kinds of problems in argumentation. You keep harping on me calling you an authoritarian. But you do it completely out of context, which was in response to you branding Fox as an "enemy of that state." You've never responded to my actual argument on that topic, which is "it's a bad idea to use the same tactics that authoritarians use to take over governments."

The authoritarian playbook is something like: (1) identify a threat; (2) claim the threat is an existential threat; (3) use the existential threat to limit freedom of speech, press, etc. (4) Extend press limitations with the end result that government controls the press and, therefore, information.

You've done steps (1) and (2). Labeling Fox News an "enemy of the state" is (2) in spades. Your proposal is the start of (3). It's totally fair for you to argue "yeah, but it's just a little disclaimer." And I would respond with something like "there is no reasoned distinction you can draw that would limit the government's power to just a disclaimer. There are some lines that are extremely dangerous to cross, and this is one of them.
Veritas wrote:I never proposed "government control" of all media, I suggested something needed to be done to protect the country from the harm FOX has caused and continues to cause.
Let's not rewrite history. My initial comments were in response to your branding Fox News an "enemy of the state." You are conflating my response to that description with my substantive arguments as to why your disclaimer proposal is unconstitutional and a bad idea. You've also introduced yet another straw man: nowhere have I said that you proposed government control of all media. So, whatever argument you are describing, it's not the one I posted here. You proposed that the government force Fox News to run a disclaimer saying, in effect, "We're not news so you shouldn't believe us." Are you arguing that doesn't represent government control over what the media broadcasts or publishes? Or that it doesn't give the government the power to determine what is "news" and what is not?
Veritas wrote:But then in an ironic twist you get upset with me for basically spinning your own logic back only you by pointing out that your remark about media being historically "partisan as hell" is precisely what FOX News argues to justify their existence as a counterweight. So what does that correlation make you? I don't know.
Whatever "logic" you are referring to it isn't mine. There's no discernible logic at all in your straw man description of what I said. This is exactly the type of thing I mean when I say you aren't even making an effort to understand. Again, you're taking bits and pieces of things that aren't related and splicing them together as if they were related.

I introduced the historical partisanship of newspapers in a response to Honor. What I've said about that is 100% historical fact. It's an important fact if you actually want to understand the development of freedom of the press. I introduced it to argue that the application of the fairness doctrine to broadcast media is an aberration in first amendment jurisprudence. That is also a historical fact.

You responded with a claim to the effect that there has never been a news media as partisan as Fox. That's simply wrong.

You keep claiming that I'm making an argument Fox makes, and therefore I'm something. So? First, I'm not. That the press has in the past been more partisan than Fox has is a fact. So is the fact that the Supreme Court has never held that the government can do anything about partisanship in the press, except in the very limited circumstances applicable to broadcast media, which don't apply to Fox. I'm not arguing anything about need for balance or the degree of partisanship in Fox vs. the Washington Post, which is what Fox argues. I'm arguing that partisanship is not a justification for the government dictating what the press must say in any way or becoming the arbiter of what is a "real news organization" and what is not.

So, whatever "gotcha" you think you've pulled, it's not based on my actual argument and it's a complete red herring to what I've actually argued. Congratulations on forming an invalid argument that concludes with "I don't know." The entire paragraph is an irrelevant distraction that has nothing to do with the subject under discussion. That's what all this apologetics war crap does.
Veritas wrote:But this is all a straw man because no one is talking about mere partisanship. FOX News isn't just partisan, it is an enemy to this country because it WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY propagates HARMFUL DISINFORMATION for the sole purpose of propping up a political party that is working hard to upend our Democracy.
No, that is not what a straw man is. You've made all kinds of arguments in support of your proposal. One of them is partisanship. It's not a straw man for me to address that part. I never claimed that partisanship was the only issue. It's actually a straw man to imply that I did. Again, if you're going to throw around the names for logical fallacies, you really should learn what they are and use them properly.

If you're willing to take partisanship off the table as support for your proposal, I'm happy not to address it anymore.
Veritas wrote:FOX News isn't just partisan, it is an enemy to this country because it WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY propagates HARMFUL DISINFORMATION for the sole purpose of propping up a political party that is working hard to upend our Democracy.
So, this, I think, is where the rubber hits the road. Again, referring to the history of newspapers, here is what the press did historically with no interference: "WILLFULLY and KNOWINGLY propagates HARMFUL DISINFORMATION for the sole purpose of propping up a political party...." Look through what is commonly referred to as something like the period of the political press. There are also a few Supreme Court cases that address knowingly spreading false information. And they say that the remedy is not government authority but more speech. And there's a reason for that: giving government the ability to tell the press what it has to say (which is what your mandatory disclaimer does) and the right to determine what is "news" and what is not is so contrary to the core values of our system of government that it's not worth the risk of crossing those bright lines.

But this part, "working hard to upend our Democracy," at least raises an issue that invokes a recognized limitation on freedom of the press. Again, history tells us lots about when courts will limit freedom of the press. Again, lots of history is relevant. The most important thing is that "threat to the United States" has been used as the rationale to jail and suppress members of unpopular groups -- even political opponents. There are some pretty awful examples of authoritarianism in the early years of the United States. Because the First Amendment was limited to the federal government, state governments can and did jail publishers simply for criticizing the government. Before Marbury v. Madison established the power of judicial review, one national political party was able to enact the Sedition Act, under which it was a crime to criticize the government of the United States. And the majority party used it to prosecute and jail its opponents in the minority party. Something like 14 people were prosecuted and 10 were convicted. That was the death knell of the party that enacted the law. It never won another election.

The evolution of the boundary between constitutionally protected publication and unprotected threats to the nation happened before and throughout World War I. This is where you can really see the development of freedom of the press. And you can see it happen in a handful of opinion by Oliver Wendell Homes. They are all about convictions of people under criminal statutes addressing sedition or espionage for publishing leaflets or handbills advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government or something close to that. The government didn't have to prove much in the way of actual threat as long as what was proposed was overthrow of the government. Holmes wrote the majority opinion in a few cases that upheld the convictions. Then, he changed his view. He started writing dissents in which he argued that the government had no right to restrict the press (which, yes, includes leafletting and handbills) unless it could prove an actual, immediate threat. And small groups handing out leaflets did not meet that criteria. Over time, Holmes' view won out, resulting in what we call the "clear and present danger" standard. But even that standard becomes more and more strict over time. Proving the required causal connection and the immediacy of the threat is very hard to do. The Pentagon Papers is a good example, in which the Supreme Court denied an injunction against the Washington Post to keep it from publishing the Pentagon Papers, which were classified documents, based on harm to national security.

The law applicable to regulating the press was developed in the context of a disfavored religious minority: not Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses. The Witnesses would earn a living by distributing pamphlets and selling books to those who were interested. Many towns enacted laws designed to prevent the Witnesses from selling books, including requiring them to obtain a license from the City. Over the course of several cases, the Supreme Court held that the minimal regulation of just requiring a license was an unconstitutional violation of freedom of the press.

Part of the "delay" in responding to you was spent reviewing summaries of 30 or 40 cases in which courts addressed freedom of the press, from the 1700s through modern times. I was looking for any case in which the government was allowed to force the press to publish anything. I couldn't find anything in the realm of political speech or press publication. Even the fairness doctrine required only a "balance" in news coverage. The government did not dictate to the press language that it had to say. I think the reason is pretty obvious: in terms of invasion of free speech or freedom of the press, nothing is more intrusive than the government forcing a person or newspaper or other publication to say or print something that it does not believe. Similarly, nothing is more restrictive of a free press than giving government the ability to decide who is "real news" and who is not.

As I've said, there's one justice who has stated the view that lies enjoy no constitutional protection. But do you think he would give the government the power to determine which news outlets are "real news" and which are not? I'm skeptical.

I know you think that what you propose is a minimal intrusion justified by the danger. But I don't think you have any idea how radical the notion is of giving the government the right to determine what is news and what is not and then forcing those it decides are not to publish a disclaimer. This is not overturning Roe v. Wade. This is overturning decades and decades of case law defining the extent of freedom of the press, not to mention the notion of limited federal government.

One of the hard lessons in being a lawyer is learning and really understanding that not every wrong has a remedy, let alone the remedy you want.
Veritas wrote:Oh, and yeah, because they make money hand over fist in doing so.
Yes, we call that capitalism. Making money isn't a reason for intruding on a constitutional freedom.
Veritas wrote: And they're doing it out in the open and we're just sitting back watching our society wither away as more people get armed and we see an escalation in violent rhetoric as it corresponds to an escalation with violent riots.
Okay, so you're really scared. In terms of society withering away, again you take a very narrow historical perspective. Doing something in the open = not a justification for restricting constitutional freedoms. Threat to "society" = not a justification for restricting constitutional freedoms. People getting armed is a constitutional right. Causing people to exercise constitutional rights = not a justification for restricting constitutional rights. Escalation in violent rhetoric is constitutionally protected except in narrow, defined circumstances. Violent riots = crime. Remedy is law enforcement. There is nothing in this paragraph that justifies your proposal.
Res Ipsa wrote:So, the reason we can’t have the fairness doctrine back has nothing to do with Hitler or Nazis. It’s because the founders saw the danger in giving the state the power to control the content of the press.
Veritas wrote:You called me an authoritarian or a fascist for merely saying something even honor seems to agree with. Own up to what you said Res. For whatever reason you don't respond this way to other posters who appear to agree with me. That tells me your problem with me has little to do with things I say.
This is a classic non sequitur. You don't address what I said at all. It's also a straw man, as I never referred to you as a facist. And the reference to authoritarian was in a very specific context, which you continue to omit. Your butthurt over whatever it was I actually said is a red herring -- it literally has nothing to do with whether your proposal is constitutional. Appealing to Honor as some kind of authority is also a fallacy -- I get to disagree with Honor. But the grande finale is the kind of personal attack you always revert to -- that's one of the terrible, nasty techniques used in Mopologetics. You don't take the time to really understand and engage with my argument, so it makes no sense to you, so you claim it's personal animosity. Bull pucky.

I have no interest in absolving you of your butthurt. You disagree with whatever it was I actually said. Fine. I literally don't care. My opinion is still that you display an authoritarian streak, based on years of reading your posts and interacting with you. My opinion is that your labeling Fox News as an enemy of the state is authoritarian. Nothing you've said in this discussion has changed those opinions. I'm not demanding that you agree. I'm not demanding that you anything. It's a subjective opinion and it's the one I have. Okay -- those are my words and I've stood by them. Now, can we drop your butthurt as a topic and stick to whether your proposal is constitutional or a good idea?
Res Ipsa wrote:You keep simply ignoring the role that government control of the press plays...
Veritas wrote:Again, who said anything about "government control of the press"? I even clarified what I said and you continue to beat a straw man. What I suggest is a minimal attempt to circumvent the harm FOX and other bogus outlets have done to this nation. Again, there are already standards that are in effect for news organizations, but they're only enforced internally at outlets like CNN. FOX has its own code of ethics but it doesn't even pretend to use them anymore. Their hosts violate their own policies all the time when they get involved in political campaigns.
Again, misuse of the straw man fallacy. Who said anything about government control of the press? I did. Right in the part you quoted. When a make an argument, I am not somehow limited to repeating back to you exactly what you said and stopping. I said you're ignoring a relevant consideration. And you still are. If the government forces Fox to broadcast a disclaimer, that is government control of the press. You simply keep ignoring the ramifications of that by claiming that "government control of the press" means "total government control of the press." Just for emphasis: if it is unconstitutional to require the press to get a license as condition of publishing, how in the world is forcing Fox to say "we're not news and you shouldn't believe us" going to be constitutional?
Res Ipsa wrote:Veritas pines for the Fairness Doctrine, but he has a short historical memory. Newspapers, through their lifetimes, have been partisan as hell.
Veritas wrote:The Fairness doctrine was just an example, and yes, it would still be helpful if it were never rescinded because Talk Radio kinda gave birth to FOX News. Hannity, Beck, Carlson, Limbaugh, Ingraham, etc. They all started as uneducated radio personalities.
Actually, it wouldn't. As I've explained, the fairness doctrine was constitutional because of a unique set of factual conditions, which no longer exist. It was never applied to cable. And because conditions have changed, there is no longer a constitutional basis for it even with respect to broadcast TV and Radio.
Veritas wrote:Now you're just buying into the FOX News BS which it uses to justify their overtly partisan propaganda. The media was NEVER half as Liberal as FOX is Conservative.
Res Ipsa wrote:]Ah, your all purpose excuse for dismissing arguments you don’t like.
Veritas wrote: Again if saying something an authoritarian would say ("enemy of the state") makes me a fascist then what does mimicking FOX make you? "All purpose excuse"?
Again with the straw man. And the parallel you're trying to draw doesn't hold up. You're not trying to argue that I'm a "Fox News" -- you're trying to avoid responding to the substance of what I said by claiming I'm just repeating Fox News propaganda. The substance of what I said was 100% accurate -- historically, newspapers were much more partisan than Fox. By dismissing, rather than addressing the fact, you're just doing some fancy dodging.

You made a claim to the effect that Fox News's partisanship is unprecedented. That is false. Historically, newspapers were far more partisan than Fox. Newspapers were owned by politicians and unabashedly used as propaganda for them. Never once have you even tried to dispute that. And guess what? If Fox used that fact as part of an argument, the fact doesn't magically transform into Fox Propaganda. And you also fail to show that my argument in anyway resembles whatever it is you say Fox argues. That's not surprising, as you simply tried to discredit what I said and didn't actually address it.
Res Ipsa wrote:How about you link to some of that sweet Fox propaganda about the historical partisanship of NEWSPAPERS. You can’t because it doesn’t exist.
Veritas wrote:FOX has always argued their existence was needed because all other media was inherently biased and Liberal, ESPECIALLY the friggin newspapers. My Step-Dad was a newspaper junkie growing up. I remember having to haul hundreds of pounds of used newspapers to the trash over the years. But shortly after 9/11 he canceled his subscription because Hannity told him the Atlanta Journal and Constitution was too Liberal.
Again, completely unresponsive to what I said. The Fox argument you keep harping on is that its conservative partisanship is justified because of other media's liberal partisanship. I said nothing about liberal, conservative, balance or justification for partisanship. My argument is that Fox's partisanship, which you you claimed was something like the most partisan ever, is less than that of newspapers historically. I'm arguing that the fact that Fox is partisan is irrelevant in terms of its freedom of the press. Your anecdote is irrelevant. Your dad is not Fox and history did not begin with your dad.
Res Ipsa wrote:To be a partisan as newspapers have been historically, Trump would have to own Fox and Biden would have to own CNN. Politicians owned newspapers and used them to mercilessly attack their opponents. You’ve proved exactly what I said: short historical memory. Now, find me a case where the Supreme Court allowed the government to control the contents of those publications. I’ll wait.
Veritas wrote:Not nearly as long as I'll need to wait for you to stop beating straw men apparently. You seem to think I propose Nauvoo Expositor 2.0 or something.
Again, improper use of straw man. Nowhere have I come anywhere close to suggesting that what you propose is destroying the Fox newsrooms. But your incorrect straw man excuse again allowed you to dodge the issue. And that specific issue is whether degree of partisanship is a relevant factor in justifying the government to interfere with Fox's freedom. My argument is by counterexample: there were periods in U.S. history during which the press was more extreme in terms of partisanship but there are no examples of the government being able to force a newspaper to publish something to address that issue.
Res Ipsa wrote:And Americans get to believe that violence against the government is justified under some circumstances. It’s in our national DNA. We’re a country that was born in violent resistance to government. Are you seriously taking the position that there are no circumstances under which you would take some kind of violent action against the government?
Veritas wrote:Now you're just being obtuse. The polling suggests that this view isn't uniform across the timeline of US history, but that it is rather INCREASING, and mostly among you know who.
Why is that obtuse? Do you disagree that the government cannot do anything about what people think? The country is over 200 years old, so a 20-year snapshot doesn't tell us about the vast majority of U.S. History. But you're stuck with the fact that our country was founded on the notion that violent action against the government is justifiable in some circumstances. And you're stuck with all that watering the roots of the tree of liberty stuff that some founders said.

The problem with the poll you cite is that it measures what people tell the poster at any given time. And, especially recently, the entire question of violent opposition to the government is politicized. There is an incentive to answer in way that supports one's current team. In addition, it would not be surprising at all for people's view of the current government to influence their answer to the question. If I think the government is just ducky, there's no reason for me to consider violence. If I think the government is tyrannical and oppressing my rights, there are more reasons to think seriously about violent opposition.

But again, you ducked the question. Are you claiming that there are absolutely no circumstances under which you would engage in violent opposition to the government? How about the easy case: Trump and MAGAs adopt the whole Nazi playbook, substituting "liberals" for "jews." You wouldn't engage in acts of violence to resist that? Are you willing to give an honest answer to that question. It's one thing to answer a survey question in a vacuum, and another to be presented with an extreme scenario and asked the same question.

I think it's a very hard question, and I don't think the questions asked in the survey are a good measure of what people would actually do given the right circumstances.
Veritas wrote:]A majority of adults still say violence is never justified. But that number, 62%, is a new low, per the Post. Some 90% believed it was never justified in the 1990s.

The new poll found that 40% of Republicans and 41% of independents said violence can be acceptable, compared with 23% of Democrats. Forty percent of white Americans said violence can be justified, compared with 18% of Black Americans.

Flashback: The percentage of adults who said violence is justified was 23% in 2015 and 16% in 2010 in polls by CBS News and the New York Times respectively, according to the Post.
See above.
Res Ipsa wrote:And? At some point, people are responsible for their own bad decisions. No one is forced to watch Fox.
Veritas wrote:JFC, no, but we're forced to live in the world FOX News creates. You realize we don't live in a vacuum. Every day I have to interact with the society I'm dealt. At this rate my grandkids will be living with fewer freedoms because of FOX News. This isn't hyperbole. It is already happening right before our own eyes with the abortion crap and the courts being turned into a religious court against the will of the people.
I call hyperbole. Fox creates the world? Gonna need some evidence for that.

You sound like the mirror image of Ajax when he talks about all the freedoms he's lost. The actual fact is that you have no idea what the world your grandchildren will live in will be like. Give me a reliable way to quantify freedom and maybe there will be something to talk about.
Res Ispa wrote:No one is forced to believe what Fox says.
Veritas wrote:But they do, and will continue to. So what's your point? There is no sign that FOX is letting up, but rather the opposite. Tomorrow a FOX News host could just go on a 20 minute commercial free rant explaining how virtuous and honorable it would be for Americans to rise up and end the Democratic party, using all sorts of metaphor and innuendo to suggest a violent, armed uprising.... and it wouldn't even surprise anyone today because that's basically all FOX is nowadays. And that host would likely get away with it because of all the ridiculous laws that make holding news outlets accountable for libel, slander and defamation damned near impossible.
My point is that people get to choose what they believe. You have no control over that. And you have no right to run to the government to use its coercive power to make people believe what you want them to believe. I believe all religions are false. I can make a straight faced argument that religious belief is harmful. But that doesn't mean I get to run to the government and use its coercive power to force clergy folks to recite a disclaimer before every sermon. People have a right to believe false things -- even harmful false things. Every Fox viewer literally has at their fingertips access to a myriad of sources of information. All they have to do is change the channel. You get no say in that.

So, what would the consequences be of loosening the libel laws, as Trump pushes? I'd bet the immediate consequence is burying the traditional media in lawsuits every time they say something wrong. Litigation is expensive, so which of the media sources that you approve of are you willing to sacrifice in the name of getting Fox News? Which liberal slanted internet sites are you willing to sacrifice? You seem to think loosening libel laws will only affect Fox. I think that's naïve as hell. This is an example of one of the main problems I have with your positions in this discussion: you don't seem to give any thought to the consequences beyond what you think will get Fox under control.

And, the government doesn't get to place restrictions on constitutional freedoms because someone might do something. Again, if the Rs gain control of Congress at the midterms, can they restrict constitutional freedoms because of what those evil libruls might do.
Res Ipsa wrote: But do you seriously believe that people who rejected the vaccines are going to look at a government mandated disclaimer and say “Huh. I guess the CDC is right. I’m gonna run right out and get me that shot?” Seriously?
Veritas wrote:You amaze me sometimes, how you can be so obviously intelligent and informed and then say things like this. As if you're incapable of thinking more dimensionally, you you clearly are. No, that isn't the point Res. But it takes some truly strained logic to sit there and say millions of antivaxxers develop those views on their own, with no propaganda outlet to feed them fear, uncertainty and doubt. The correlation between the unvaxxed and Right Wing fanaticism has already been drawn.
When you start a response as you did here, I read "I'm gonna duck the question." Don't you think that it's important to talk about whether what you propose would accomplish the result you want? Why does that subject amaze you? Didn't you think that through before you ever made the suggestion? Instead of presenting an argument for why we should expect your solution to have a positive effect, you just made up a big fat straw man. Did I argue that Fox didn't have an influence on vaccine refusal? No. Does a correlation between the unvaxxed and "right wing fanaticism" provide any evidence that your proposal would affect that in a positive way. Hell no. Why don't you try actually addressing the issue: why do you think the government forcing Fox to air a disclaimer would make people who don't trust the government already reject Fox?
Veritas wrote:The people you’re talking about don’t trust the government to begin with. Why would you think they’d trust the government’s opinion about Fox News? The more likely result would be to inflame the people you’re scared of.
Veritas wrote:Again, anti-government sentiment isn't innate, it is taught. And it is taught by...? Exactly.
So, why do you think the Fox audience will trust the government more based on what the government says about Fox. Let's be real, every Fox viewer will know that the disclaimer is the government speaking, not Fox. So, what happens when, before each airing of the disclaimer, a Fox host says: "The government has forced us to run this disclaimer. Obviously we don't agree with it. This is just another example of the government trying to shut down conservative voice." You gonna throw the host in jail for that?

Again, explain to me why you expect that the governent forcing Fox to run a disclaimer will have any effect at all on people who don't trust the government.
Veritas wrote:And stop spinning this BS about me being "scared" of people.
No. I get to choose my words. That's not within your control.
Vertas wrote:Me being upset that a fake news outlet is almost singlehandedly upending our Democracy doesn't make me "scared of people."


I think it's entirely fair to characterize what you've claimed throughout this discussion as "fear." You've gone far beyond mere "upset."
Res Ipsa wrote: But you’ve demonstrated almost no understanding of what I said, so it’s hard to evaluate your claim.
Veritas wrote: As if you would. You're the one who came at me over my opening post and you misrepresented what I've said and engaged in hyperbole to beat straw men.
Again, complete misuse of logical fallacies to dodge. The claim you made was "Sorry Res, but you're just flat out wrong." And you left out the first sentence of my response, which is the context for what you quoted. With the first sentence, the quote reads:

"Given the sheer number of opinions I’ve expressed in this thread, it’s almost a certainty that I’m wrong about something. But you’ve demonstrated almost no understanding of what I said, so it’s hard to evaluate your claim." You have no idea whether I would evaluate your claim that I was wrong about ... something... because you never gave me an opportunity to do it.

Finally, what you think I would do is a red herring. Are you claiming that, if you clarified what you think I was wrong about, that i wouldn't evaluate your claim? Making a deal out of the fact that I started the argument is irrelevant -- you keep turning this into a personal issue. And CFR on me "misrepresenting what you said" and "straw men." This started with you describing Fox as an enemy of the state. Those were your words, right? I didn't misrepresent what you said, did I? Again, when I respond to something you say, I don't have to parrot back your exact words. If I say "you said X" when you actually said ~X, that's a misrepresentation. But you keep casting my arguments against positions you take as representations of what you said. They aren't. That's another one of those abysmal apologist war techniques. I know how make a claim about what you said. It would look like "You said X" If I said "you said X" and you didn't say X, I'd be happy to apologize.
Res Ipsa wrote:I’m pretty sure I’m not wrong about the Constitutional basis of the fairness doctrine
Vertitas wrote:Never said you were.
Never said that you said I was. See how that works? You made an unqualified statement that I was wrong. After acknowledging that I was probably wrong about something, I listed the things I was pretty confident I was right about. Doing that in no way implies "Veritas told me I was wrong about the fairness doctrine." Again, this is more goofy apologetic wars crap that gets in the way of actually discussing the issues.

...
Res Ipsa wrote:If I am, you sue haven’t offered any evidence to that effect.
Veritas wrote: I don't address straw man arguments because to do so would no longer make them a straw man.
That's complete gibberish. If you're interested in actually presenting an argument or sharing ideas, there are good ways to address an actual straw man. One is: that's not what I'm arguing -- I'm arguing X. Or "I didn't claim X, I claimed Y. It's normal in the back and forth of an argument that someone will misunderstand or misdescribe a position. But not responding to a straw man because it would no longer be a straw man makes no sense whatsoever. You don't get points for saying "straw man." That's not how arguments work. And, if I do get something wrong, "You misrepresented my argument but I'm not going tell what my argument actually is" is sheer game playing. If I get your argument wrong, all you have to do is tell me what your argument is. I shouldn't have to guess.

To be continued.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
User avatar
Res Ipsa
God
Posts: 9521
Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2020 6:44 pm
Location: Playing Rabbits

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Res Ipsa »

honorentheos wrote:
Sun Sep 04, 2022 8:36 pm
Perhaps it helps to frame the problem independent of the speech issue.

I see the problem starting with the premise that a democratic society that is established on shared principles and the rule of law requires those principles be valued by the members of that society. Once those give way, the social order collapses to the next lower rung of shared identity. This is often a combination of heritage and cultural history. Often folks who have "collapsed through" principles to identity don't recognize the difference or destruction because their own definition of what it means to be an American, Mexican, German, Japanese, etc., etc., always included their heritage and culture intertwined with vague ideas regarding late 20th Century democracy equaling "freedom". The distance between the tiers is minimal for many nations who are largely homogeneous such as many of our European and Asian neighbors. For others, especially the US, the distance is a planko board composed of historical changes and hard-fought progress.

This isn't isolated to persons on the right. The identity tier is almost always more fundamental to people's ideas of what defines their national identity and makes being a/an "X" mean what it means to them. It's fundamental to mine, where I see our base society of which I am part as pluralistic, religiously agnostic (meaning no religion, or lack thereof has priority of others), and diverse to include people who claim heritage from around the world. So the issue isn't that people live their lives with lofty idealism engaged. It just has to be present when stresses occur that threaten to balkanize people into their lower tier identities completely.

News outlets have always sought to capitalize on the divisions between those lower tiers. Usually it includes a profit motive to sell time in front of eyeballs via whatever medium is being used. And they have traditionally be motivated by influence in the form of advocating for certain political positions over others. Good, bad, or indifferent it's been that way since before and including Ben Franklin. And this includes news outlets, think tanks, and influencers across the political spectrum, time and, media.

In the 90s and 2000's, my opinion of Fox News was they were clearly targeting a WASP base with culture war leverage to benefit the neocon capitalists. They were selling product and their political influence made sense within a paradigm that still benefited from the stability of Western Liberal Democracy and it's principles.

I can't see that anymore. Are they selling product and buying eyeball time? Absolutely. But the influence motive is lost. We see this "WTF are you all thinking?" from folks who previously enabled the same media vehicles such as the Lincoln Project members. We talk about Mitt Romney and Liz Cheney as being only a handful of "principled" Republicans left because the stress became so great between the tiers they stand out as having reached to the higher tier to attempt to protect the integrity of the United States of America. As an Arizonan I never shared Jeff Flake's politics. But it turned out we both shared a belief in what made us Americans at that higher tier.

So what do you do when the issue isn't completing speech but the use of the freedoms of a liberal democracy to gut it and turn it into a authoritarian regime dominated by conflict and a coalition of second-tier identities?

I love peace and push for it over violence. But I'm not a pacifist. There is tension in believing in these rights and opposing views not being a moral issues to needing to protect the rights against those who would use them to destroy them.

I think Res is right that were the government to attempt to regulate speech it would fuel the authoritarian impulses of those who believe government is already oppressing them and politically weaponized against so-called conservatives. Conservatives being code for certain heritage and religious identities rather than any actual political ideology or fiscal policy. I don't know. It's a bad situation once Congress decided they won't agree with holding accountable the destruction of our Republic as a partisan matter. We are in a bad place.

So, really, I honestly would love for someone to explain the influence motive for Fox News. Because in my mind there is a point where an influence motive opposed to the higher principles of liberal democracy justifies reconsidering their access to the rights they may just be tearing apart.
Hmm. Interesting experiment. I'm gonna have to chew on this a little. I like your phrasing of the dilemma, but I might want to tinker with bit a little.

When you're talking about Congress, are you referring to the failure to impeach the President?

I'm afraid I have no answer to your question. I could make wild ass guesses, but I have no insight into Fox's motivation. I'm not sure whether what Fox does can be explained by a single motivation or a handful of motivations. Knowing would be helpful, because very solid evidence that Fox's motivation is the destruction of our democracy and replacement with an autocracy, that would affect my calculus. But I don't see that, so I have to default to "it's probably complicated" and shrug my shoulders.
he/him
When I go to sea, don’t fear for me. Fear for the storm.

Jessica Best, Fear for the Storm. From The Strange Case of the Starship Iris.
honorentheos
God
Posts: 3752
Joined: Mon Nov 23, 2020 2:15 am

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by honorentheos »

Thanks for the consideration, Res.

Regarding your question, it's more or less that Congress seems incapable of even talking about Presidential accountability except as partisan maneuvering. After January 6th I thought the lines had been crossed far enough and with direct experience involved that the conversations could happen that could focus on separation of powers rather than separation of party affiliation. Then...well, we all lived it.
User avatar
Gadianton
God
Posts: 3836
Joined: Sun Oct 25, 2020 11:56 pm
Location: Elsewhere

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Gadianton »

I think before deciding whether Fox should be forcibly silenced or not, that the arguments for freedom need to be reviewed. Not all are mutually exclusive. "optimization" is utilitarian, the greatest good for the greatest number. The list would be different if optimization means something different, like what's good personally for the king.

level 1 freedom: freedom is a good in itself. nobody should be silenced because it's a fundamental right to say or do what you want.
level 2 freedom: freedom materially optimizes outcomes. With free speech, the best ideas will win and optimize outcomes, and in a way that's straightforward to calculate.
level 3 freedom: freedom optimizes outcomes but it's not a straightforward calculation. This is akin to denying tulip mania was a bubble. An ecological analogy: the presence of a certain beetle wreaks havoc on everyone's farms, every last one is exterminated, but this upsets an ecological balance and leads to worse disasters. Hive analogy also.
level 4 freedom: freedom doesn't optimize material outcomes and often fails very badly, but it gets closer on average than governments calling the shots.
level 5 freedom: freedom leads to outcomes bad enough that government must strictly control what can be said.

It's worth noting that all the so-called libertarian outlets primarily believe in level 5 freedom. You can't criticize Truth Social or Trump on Truth Social, you can't criticize Q on the .win site, when a comment on Fox is critical of Trump, it gets replayed a million times elsewhere because it's so unusual.

Binger says stupid crap like this forum bans people for being republican. Look at his sig line. Any right-leaning forum or blog would have perma-banned Binger immediately for an equivalent insult in a sig line. And that's one of countless examples.

I think there's enough evidence that unrestricted free speech leads to bad outcomes that it's impossible to believe 2. Because the right wing is so hypocritical in their empty calls for free speech I'd personally have no problem with the government shutting down Fox -- they deserve it. But do I think it would work? Binger (I think) did make a good point that there are so many other avenues to get the message out. My right-wing friend, for instance, doesn't have Fox, and hasn't had it for years. He and his peers have been circulating the same nonsense right-wing emails since Clinton was in office. Would those emails have life without Fox? Maybe, maybe not, I don't think it's clear to say they wouldn't. I think social media has become more important, overall, than TV. I wouldn't have a problem with unplugging Fox as an experiment based on their hypocrisy, but I give it 50-50 odds of working.
Binger
God
Posts: 6132
Joined: Wed Nov 17, 2021 12:34 am
Location: That's the difference. I actually have a Blue Heeler

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Binger »

Gadianton wrote:
Mon Sep 05, 2022 3:25 pm
Binger says stupid crap like this forum bans people for being republican. Look at his sig line. Any right-leaning forum or blog would have perma-banned Binger immediately for an equivalent insult in a sig line. And that's one of countless examples.

I think there's enough evidence that unrestricted free speech leads to bad outcomes that it's impossible to believe 2. Because the right wing is so hypocritical in their empty calls for free speech I'd personally have no problem with the government shutting down Fox -- they deserve it. But do I think it would work? Binger (I think) did make a good point that there are so many other avenues to get the message out. My right-wing friend, for instance, doesn't have Fox, and hasn't had it for years. He and his peers have been circulating the same nonsense right-wing emails since Clinton was in office. Would those emails have life without Fox? Maybe, maybe not, I don't think it's clear to say they wouldn't. I think social media has become more important, overall, than TV. I wouldn't have a problem with unplugging Fox as an experiment based on their hypocrisy, but I give it 50-50 odds of working.
I am an unregistered voter and I am queued.
I don't recall ever saying that the forum bans people for being republican. Do you have a reference for that? I sincerely don't believe that and I sincerely do not recall ever saying it.

There is nothing insulting in my signature line. Liberals are welcome here. Bing Bong's law is not insulting at all. If anything, it promotes freedom of speech and shows just how liberal this forum is. My signature has links to confirm the sources and level of tolerance on this forum.

Thanks for acknowledging my point. I think that FOX is not very relevant, at all. Banning them or censoring them would be a significantly bigger story than any story they could ever generate or create.
Dr Exiled
God
Posts: 1601
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2020 2:40 pm

Re: FOX NEWS Is an Enemy of the State

Post by Dr Exiled »

The Supreme Court currently has it correct in that the answer to bad speech isn't repression or cancellation, but more speech. If there is a bad idea out there, then educate and inform. Don't stamp out speech that you don't like simply because it is inconvenient or more importantly because it exposes lies and deceit that you want to cover up for political expediency. The Mormon church would love to repress certain speech and we don't want to live in a world where the Book of Mormon as historical is forced on us.

The only place I see where government might regulate is if a company gains monopoly power and then uses it to limit speech. We cannot have voices stamped out due to monopoly forces. There are a lot of bad ideas out there but allowing a monopolist to decide what is good and what is bad is dangerous. Who fact checks the fact checkers? Trump or someone like him could become such a monopolist fact checker and then gain control of the government via campaign contributions, etc. and then turn around and ban everyone who disagrees. However, the same goes for the Democrats and their billionaire supporters. We shouldn't want anyone with too much power.

Here is an old article about Google's monopoly power: https://www.usnews.com/opinion/articles ... -regulated

Here is one that mentions the antitrust lawsuit against google: https://www.cmswire.com/digital-marketi ... rketplace/

Looks like the DOJ is gearing up for an antitrust lawsuit against google as well: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles ... trust-suit

Finally, I think forcing Fox to wear a scarlet letter is unworkable. It won't convince anyone and will probably lead to retrenchment and would make Fox more popular than ever. Trump gained support after the FBI actions in August. The FBI actions were viewed as being repressive and designed to stamp out Trump's voice. He was allowed to be the victim and his base got energized by it. Attack Mormons and they will rally around their cause, regardless. Here again, more speech is the answer and not suppression of unwanted opinion.
Myth is misused by the powerful to subjugate the masses all too often.
Post Reply