Another side of the Iraqi war

[ShiftyPowers]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
Uh, that's not what it says in the Constitution. Check out Article I Section 8. I think the government has an interest in make sure that the American people are informed properly and not misled by a cabal of interested individuals pretending to be "journalists" who happen to have the money to broadcast those interests. You are completely off-base when you say people are trying to "silence" anyone. Sinclair can broadcast all the fake documentaries they want to smear Kerry. It's perfectly legal. They simply have to give equal time to a documentary that provides the opposite point of view, in this case, the truth about Kerry's service. You are only opposed to equal time because despite all your ravings about liberal media, you know full well most media conglomerates are owned and operated by rightists.

Not quite actually. "Equal time" is certainly not a guaranteed right in the Constitution, in fact many decisions that the Court has made over the years hinge on the fact that in life things are often not equal. A media company can broadcast whatever it wants, equal time is more of an ethics concern than anything; it would certainly never be upheld by the Supreme Court. What is however, an interesting issue is where the money came to produce this movie and the purpose for this movie.

A large corporation cannot spend money with the intent to influence elections, it has to go through a PAC, a 527, or the company has to be a small, non-profit, politically organized corporation. Since I don't believe a corporation funded this movie and was coordinated with the Bush Campaign, it is completely legal. As I said earlier, the ethics are different for sure, but that's not the law.

Also since you trotted out the Constitution, you should know that BCRA has provisions in it to protect the right of the press/media. Because of the First Amendment, anything the press does is for the most part exempt from Campaign Finance Laws and always will be.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by rhizome17
Haha just listening to some election coverage on BBC World Service, they have reporters in various swing states going around interviewing people at public events like fairs and the like. This exchange is classic, at a kids soccer game talking to the mothers:

Journalist: So who will you be voting for?

Woman: Oh, George Bush, certainly.

J: How do you think he has managed the war in Iraq?

W: Oh, he has done the best he can, I mean, they declared war on us first.

J (sounding incredulous): What do you mean? Iraq didn't declare war...

W: Yes they did, they came flying planes into our buildings

J (sounding even more incredulous): But that was Al Quida, not Iraq...

W: Yeah, but thats where they came from.

Saddam did shoot at our planes on a daily basis... maybe someone should inform this moron of that.

BUt you know, it's easy for the BBC to find such people. Maybe the US media should go over to England and find some dumbass to talk to as well. I am sure there are plenty of them who might sound just like this fool.

 

[Virgo]

naw, people are generally better informed in Europe wether you want to admit it or not.

 

[TOON ARMY]

Originally posted by Virgo
naw, people are generally better informed in Europe wether you want to admit it or not.

True, sometimes we hear more about American politics than our own

 

[Hendrik]

Saddam to Declare Candidacy for Iraqi Elections



Overthrown Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, who was arrested by US forces last December, reportedly plans to run as a candidate in the Iraqi elections scheduled for January 2005.

Saddam's lawyer Giovanni di Stefano told Denmark's B.T. newspaper that Saddam decided during one of their discussions that he would declare his candidacy for the elections.

Stefano said that there was no law that prevented Saddam from appearing on the ballot. He added that Saddam hopes to regain his presidency and palaces via the democratic process.

Contrary to the statements of Iraqi Interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, Stefano claims, "Saddam has no chance to be tried before the elections. Moreover, no international law prevents him from coming forward."

Saddam's lawyer defends that the ambiguity in Iraq will favor Saddam at the polls. Stefano remarked that a recent Gallup poll indicates that 42 percent of the Iraqi people want their former leader back.

Meanwhile, evaluating the conditions of Saddam in jail, Allawi said that Saddam had asked him for mercy.
-----------------------------------------------------
http://www.zaman.org/?bl=international&alt=&trh=20040921&hn=12424

Now that would be interesting.

 

[rhizome17]

Originally posted by Elder
Saddam did shoot at our planes on a daily basis... maybe someone should inform this moron of that.

BUt you know, it's easy for the BBC to find such people. Maybe the US media should go over to England and find some dumbass to talk to as well. I am sure there are plenty of them who might sound just like this fool.

Shooting at planes flying over what was your sovereign territory is pretty normal. Hardly a 'declaration of war'. ANd considering it was British and American planes bombing BEFORE the official war had started, it isn't surprising that Saddam would try to shoot them down, is it?

And there isn't an election on in England. So I can't see the US media bothering to spend the money when they don't have an international correspondent between them worthy of the name. And it would be harder to find someone supporting the war in England than it would be in the US, as popular support for the war only existed in a handful of countries. And England wasn't one of them.

 

[Brondbyfan]

Not quite actually. "Equal time" is certainly not a guaranteed right in the Constitution, in fact many decisions that the Court has made over the years hinge on the fact that in life things are often not equal. A media company can broadcast whatever it wants, equal time is more of an ethics concern than anything; it would certainly never be upheld by the Supreme Court. What is however, an interesting issue is where the money came to produce this movie and the purpose for this movie.

You must have misunderstood me. The section I referred to is the section dealing with interstate commerce. I was pointing out that Elder is most certainly wrong when he says it's not the government's job to regulate broadcasting; it is their job and it says so in the Constitution.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Virgo
naw, people are generally better informed in Europe wether you want to admit it or not.

That's true, but it depends on what information they are getting as well.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by Brondbyfan
You must have misunderstood me. The section I referred to is the section dealing with interstate commerce. I was pointing out that Elder is most certainly wrong when he says it's not the government's job to regulate broadcasting; it is their job and it says so in the Constitution.

Quote the "government has the right to regulate broadcasting" amendment. I don't remember TV being around back in the late 1700's...






Interstate commerce? You're pulling at straws now... free speech is free speech. You may not like what you hear because you would rather muzzle the things you don't agree with, but it's not the government's job to tell Sinclair what to show on their network.

 

[ShiftyPowers]

Yeah, sorry Brondby, but freedom of the press trumps any interest the Federal Government might have in the Interstate Commerce Activities of Broadcasting. For a law to infringe on freedom of speech there needs to be 2 things, a compelling government interest, and the law has to be narrowly tailored. And even so, the Pentagon Papers were published, so even if there's a compelling State interest, sometimes the press wins out.

 

[Elder]

Originally posted by ShiftyPowers
Yeah, sorry Brondby, but freedom of the press trumps any interest the Federal Government might have in the Interstate Commerce Activities of Broadcasting. For a law to infringe on freedom of speech there needs to be 2 things, a compelling government interest, and the law has to be narrowly tailored. And even so, the Pentagon Papers were published, so even if there's a compelling State interest, sometimes the press wins out.

This topic actually got me thinking... Why can the government stop someone like Sinclair from showing porn? Or is that just tied up in FCC regulations and what not?

As far as the Freedom of the Press goes, you are right. There is stuff put out that is not true on a daily basis all over the country, but the government cannot just stop that information from coming out. The public generally decides what is acceptable or not by flipping channels...

 

[ShiftyPowers]

The federal government can stop Sinclair, or any other network affiliate, from showing porn because they use the public airways. When you voulontarily accept public help you are subject to public standards, which are regulated by the FCC. I don't believe the FCC can do ANYTHING to Cable TV if they show porn. Same with radio, you're using the public airwaves that anyone can access at anytime free of direct charge; something like XM can probably not be regulated by the FCC.