|
|
|
|||
| Go to page 1~2~3..13~14~15 [Next] | ||||||||||
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5017 Posts 
|
The topic came up as a side line in the conspiracy thread, but certainly it deserves its own thread. Nazis, de-platforming, gay cakes, lots to talk about.
I'll start here: PHOENIX — The American Civil Liberties Union filed a federal lawsuit today arguing that an Arizona law requiring state contractors to certify that they won’t boycott Israel violates the First Amendment. The ACLU filed the case on behalf of an attorney and his one-person law office, which contracts with the government to provide legal services to incarcerated individuals. https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech-la......boycotts Would you support the ACLU in this instance or not? But don't feel limited to just this example.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 20533 Posts
|
I not going through that entire case. My position is that free speech is not limited to things I agree with.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
From your descriptions it sounds like like something is wrong somewhere. I didn't follow the link, but basically my principles would be:
A) The state/taxpayer primary goal in hiring companies to do X, y or z is quality of product balanced against value for money. That's it. They should have no other concerns, except that the company is operating lawfully with regard all necessary laws etc. B) As such, the state cannot pick one company over another for any reason of ethical or political values, only value for money for the taxpayer. This means they cannot stipulate any company does or does not follow such and such a political viewpoint - they cannot mandate that the company boycott so and so, or only trade with so and so, or have any sort of particular ethos etc. C) Each company owner can decide upon the operating ethos of that company, who they want to deal with and who they want as clients etc. The free market will take care of this - if they make unpopular choices their business will suffer and its up to them to decide whether or not they're willing to take a financial hit for ethical reasons. I think that covers my view here. So, the government can't say it will only deal with companies who don't boycott Israel. If a boycotting company offers great service at a great cost for the taxpayer then they should go with that company. If a non-boycotting company is better, then they go with them. Politics doesn't factor at all. The company can be flat-earther satanists, it's utterly irrelevant - do they provide the best service for the best price? Private customers can, of course, choose to emply companies or not for any reason they want - political or whatever. |
|||||||||
|
Jonathan Townsend Eternal Order Ossining, NY 27137 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 7, 2017, landmark wrote: invest their money where it won't yield bad publicity, public protests and shaming... at the risk of losing their ability to do business with others...
...to all the coins I've dropped here
|
|||||||||
|
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5017 Posts
|
Similar law passed in New York state, and a different spin on it in Kansas.
It seems unconstitutional on the face of it to me, but I guess we'll see what the courts rule.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
|
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5017 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 7, 2017, Dannydoyle wrote: Agreed, otherwise it isn't free speech. Where it gets complicated for me is the access issue: realistically, the more money one pays, the more access your speech gets on major media. Is that okay? For a long time in this country up until fairly recently, we had a Fairness Doctrine for major broadcast media. From Wikipedia: "The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the Commission's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States." I think it should be reinstated. What do you think?
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
In the UK we have mixed media - the BBC is state funded via license fee. I'm ok with that in principle, but only if very strict guidelines are adhered to - which they are not. I'm also pretty ok with it ceasing to exist though I think I'd prefer a mixed media system.
The government should not interefere with the BBC in any way, except to ensure its lawfulness and effective use of taxpayer money. The BBC should be politically neutral (lol) with only factual reporting of news, no opinion or commentary. Where it does want to run opinion and commentary shows, all biases of all involved must be stated and multiple sides should always be equally represented - not just for politics, but any controversial issue. The BBC must specialise in education and the kind of programmes commercial broadcasters wouldn't touch - so lots of documentaires, academic discussion programmes, lectures, the arts, minority programming, religious programming, etc. Basically,y a return to its original ethos rather than the gloop it's now become. Commercial stations shouldn't be interfered with. If they want to push propaganda all day, and they somehow get enough revenues to pay for that, then bully for them. If you're rich and want tot flood the airwaves with your propaganda, and the stations want to take your money, then go right ahead. So long as everything is lawful and transparent, then that's fine. Of course, there should be no monopoly situation, plenty of genuine competition, and a genuinely free market. I wouldn't want the state fussing around private businesses. In short, then, if I was US and you asked if I wanted that law re-instated, I'd say no. I'd be open to the establishing of an American BBC,though (if it adhered to its founding principles). |
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
Which way do you think the gay cake case is going to go, and which way should it go?
|
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
The bakery should be allowed to refuse service to whomever they don't want to do business with, and any restrictions or consequences that follow should come from the working of the free market.
It won't go that way.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
Agreed.
|
|||||||||
|
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5017 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 8, 2017, NYCTwister wrote: Do you think that restaurants should be allowed to refuse service to people whose color they don't like? Should bus companies be allowed to have a section in the back for undesirables? Should movie theaters be allowed to have separate entrances based on immigration status? Should UPS be allowed to pay its women drivers less than its male drivers? Because that is what such a blanket "free market" principle implies.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
|
NYCTwister Loyal user 267 Posts
|
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote:
Quote:
On Dec 8, 2017, NYCTwister wrote: Quote:
Do you think that restaurants should be allowed to refuse service to people whose color they don't like? Yes. Quote:
Should bus companies be allowed to have a section in the back for undesirables? If they're private companies, yes. Quote:
Should movie theaters be allowed to have separate entrances based on immigration status? Should UPS be allowed to pay its women drivers less than its male drivers? Yes and yes. Quote:
Because that is what such a blanket "free market" principle implies. Yes, I know. A truly free market would destroy those businesses. Hell, even the handi-capable, corrupted, version of a "free" market that we DO have would sort it out in short order.
If you need fear to enforce your beliefs, then your beliefs are worthless.
|
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
Agree with NYCTwister. I sense I'm not the only classic liberal/ libertarian/ free speech fundamentalist here ...
|
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
Landmark:
Do you think Jews should be forced to make Nazi cakes? Or Muslim sign-writers forced to make anti-Mohammed signs? Should hotels be forced to hire out their services for religious/political/personal events they disagree with? And what's your answer to the gay cake case - you didn't give your own view? |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 20533 Posts
|
[quote]On Dec 8, 2017, NYCTwister wrote:
Quote:
On Dec 8, 2017, landmark wrote: What he said.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 20533 Posts
|
Quote:
On Dec 7, 2017, landmark wrote: Since it was basically government interference that ruined the Bozo Circus show I am against interference of any sort. (That is true by the way look it up.) Fairness is not possible. It is people getting angry because they LOST the monopoly they had on opinion and wanting to get back to how it was at one point. For a LONG TIME it was ONE point of view. ONE. That was OK before 1987 wasn't it? Was it "fair" back before then? Hardly. Should a news organization like MSNBC or CNN be REQUIRED to air a certain amount of POSITIVE coverage of President Trump, or FOX a certain amount of positive coverage of President Obama? I mean if the government is going to regulate things like that how large a step is it to where they just write the news themselves? Why give them ANY control over any of it? Don't you see the flaw in that idea? Give up control of it and then what will happen? I know you want to regulate your opinion having equal coverage, but what if people don't want to hear it? The market will sort it out.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
landmark Inner circle within a triangle 5017 Posts
|
Have to say that I'm surprised by the unanimity by the three of you for all three cases. I expected more nuance.
Quote:
Yes, I know. A truly free market would destroy those businesses. It didn't at all. Not at all. And again, as I said in another thread, that's within my lifetime. We don't have to speculate--we know what happened in history. It took government legislation. I don't know what happened with Bozo, I'll look it up when I get a chance, but nobody better touch a strand of his red hair. I'd be in favor of a Bozo Exception to any rule. The gay cake I'm still thinking about.
Click here to get Gerald Deutsch's Perverse Magic: The First Sixteen Years
All proceeds to Open Heart Magic charity. |
|||||||||
|
Dannydoyle Eternal Order 20533 Posts
|
Government regulations required an educational element that was pushed into a show that had been 100% entertainment in the past. It didn't help ratings at all.
Danny Doyle
<BR>Semper Occultus <BR>In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act....George Orwell |
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
Landmark:
Did you mean 'more variation' rather than 'more nuance'? One is a fair expectation, the other sounds like a value judgement, lol 
I should also add, that my view only applies to certain societies - such as contemporary America or UK etc. I don't think it would have been appropriate back in the 60s, nor would it work in, say, Saudi Arabia. Societies have to reach a certain point before they can be free. |
|||||||||
|
Terrible Wizard Inner circle 1973 Posts
|
Also, what still puzzles you about the gay cake row? Isn't it exactly the same in principle as your own examples? How would you answer my other questions?
|
|||||||||
| The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » Free Speech (32 Likes) | ||||||||||
| Go to page 1~2~3..13~14~15 [Next] | ||||||||||
Posted: Dec 7, 2017 01:54 pm 
| [ Top of Page ] |
|
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved. This page was created in 0.2 seconds requiring 5 database queries. |
|
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic. > Privacy Statement < 
|