|
|
|
November 05, 2008
All speech is like pornography!
And libertarians don't exist! The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air.So said Chuck Schumer, in remarks widely interpreted as a comparison between talk radio and pornography. While talk radio and pornography have little in common, that's not the point. What's being concealed by the comparison is that if talk radio is like pornography, then so are blogs and the mainstream media. All speech can be regulated under the logic of Schumer's porn analogy. But what offends me as a libertarian is that Schumer is putting words in my mouth. I am against government regulation of the airwaves, period. I don't want the Fairness Doctrine, nor do I want the FCC regulating pornography on the air. This is not to say that I want to hear or see it; only that I don't think the government should have anything to do with it. I suspect I am not alone and that many libertarians feel the same way. But apparently, Schumer wants to live in a comfy world in which libertarians don't exist at all, and do not have to be acknowledged. Look, I realize that many people don't agree with the libertarian view of government regulation, or with me. But what's wrong with saying so? Is there something about libertarianism that is so obnoxious that it can't even be recognized as a point of view? Schumer continuess by saying because he is for regulation of pornography, that means everything else is fair game: I am for that... But you can't say government hands off in one area to a commercial enterprise but you are allowed to intervene in another. That's not consistent."To Schumer, who wants to regulate everything, it's not consistent. And to libertarians, who generally want to regulate nothing, it's not consistent. Perhaps he feels threatened by any consistency that isn't consistent with his consistency, but he's also overlooking the fact that pornography has a long history of being treated differently than traditional free speech (especially political speech). So has commercial speech; hence the near total ban on cigarette advertising. To bootstrap the pornography exception into a case against political speech is to torture reality, as well as the history of First Amendment law. It's one of the more demagogic statements I have seen from a public official in some time, and that's saying a lot. Is it possible that Schumer harbors hostility towards the First Amendment? posted by Eric on 11.05.08 at 11:06 PM
Comments
Yes, but fairness would require that the other side would have to be presented alongside the bestiality. Perhaps a religious leader along with a representative from PETA could issue strongly worded condemnations. Eric Scheie · November 6, 2008 11:41 AM Think the "Fairness Doctrine" would also apply to Pacifica's five FM stations (like the SF Bay Area's 33,000 watt KPFA)? How about the taxpayer-supported Corporation for Public Broadcasting? Whitehall · November 6, 2008 02:21 PM "The very same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC [Federal Communications Commission] to limit pornography on the air." Well, uh, yeah. Those'd be the people smart enough to realize that porn over the radio is never gonna be a big seller. bobby b · November 6, 2008 05:47 PM Was the 1st Amendment ever considered protection for obscenity or pornography before 1957? Was it considered so in 1791? Don't let your pro-porn stance (which I share) obscure the very real argument against control of political speech. My defense of pr0n restrictions would simply entail the right of parents to judge what their kids see. Of course, if these parents don't monitor their kids' friends, or let them keep a computer in their bedroom at 13, then they've abdicated a great deal of control which I should not be obligated to supply. Peter Buxton · November 7, 2008 12:39 PM Post a comment
You may use basic HTML for formatting.
|
|
November 2008
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
November 2008
October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 AB 1634 MBAPBSAAGOP Skepticism See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
• Freedomism is disgusting
• Where Is The Faith? • A Move In The Right Direction • Choosing The Robber Barons • Keeping the news in the closet • "Will this put a stop to the idiotic rumors? Of course not!" • Soothe The Monkeys • McCain Is Against Coal • All speech is like pornography! And libertarians don't exist! • The election is over, but the geographical literacy campaign continues
Links
Site Credits
|
|
Since Schumer favors the Fairness Doctrine, does this statement mean he also favors pornography on the airwaves? I'd like to hear more about his plan to put bestiality in every livingroom.