When Your Spirit Whispers

Pay Attention! _ Write It Down!
JANUARY 12, 2011 10:41PM

Price Gouging: Is This The Price We Pay For Freedom?

Rate: 8 Flag

“This is the price we pay for freedom!” There was a time when that statement would give me a nice warm fuzzy feeling inside. But that was a time when there were different rules of engagement for political dialog, as well as a very different system for the dissemination of information to the masses. From both the right of me and the left of me, I hear cautions about not changing the way we allow people to speak “freely” across the vast new information highway, as well as the new unregulated “talk radio” and 24 hour cable news. Announcers across the spectrum of Broadcast Television and Radio are careful not to say the seven words George Carlin listed in his 1972 monologue of dirty words “You Can Never Say on Television.” I find it very curious that people tiptoe around these seven so called obscenities while ignoring the hypocrisy of doing so in the shadow of unbridled slanderous, outright false dialog we allow at the peril of our democracy. 

 

If a rule about not speaking these seven obscenities on broadcast radio and TV can survive a challenge to the Supreme Court, then why can we not have some kind of rule about “not deliberately broadcasting knowingly false information?” There was a time in my lifetime that simple respect for civility seemed to contain the most egregious violations of what many religious people would call “bearing false witness.” But now that we have lived without the “Fairness Doctrine” for more than two decades, perhaps it was a little bit of self-regulation combined with the fairness of a level playing field.  

 

I can find many different words to describe the current unacceptable situation I see in public discourse. Anarchy, lawlessness, chaos, confusion, willful ignorance, disrespect, vitriol. But the most egregious violation of simple human decency for me , is the fact that all of this is being deliberately orchestrated through the manipulation of access to the airwaves. When I was a child we were told the airwaves belonged to us, “the people!” My name is not Rupert Murdoch, nor is it Clear Channel or Comcast! My name is not Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity! Parity and equality do not exist in broadcasting when it comes to getting to the truth. One side holds the advantage, and unfortunately that side has crossed a line that is way beyond the realm of decency or fairness.

 

So please do not tell me this is the price we pay for freedom!! The price has become way too high! Freedom of speech comes with responsibility. That responsibility includes telling the truth and taking responsibility for the consequences when you do not tell the truth. There are ways to rectify our current problems without trampling on the First Amendment! But that will only be possible when we have the ability to have a real dialog based on rational critical thinking. I am not hopeful that it will happen as long as the deck is stacked in favor of one side over the other. This is only one of a variety of Catch 22s that plague our current culture and politics! And the biggest challenge is to create change peacefully, without the kind of violence that is inherent when people lose hope. 

Your tags:

TIP:

Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Recipient's email address:
Personal message (optional):

Your email address:

Comments

Type your comment below:
What you propose is very sensible. However, ANY limitation of free speech will be met exactly the way any sensible gun regulation is met by NRA. [sigh] I agree with you. Anyone in the position of power publicly shouting about death panels should have been punished for the simple reason that it was a lie. But how to achieve that, I don't know.
Yes, I agree SpiritMan SF, with freedom comes responsibility. The Netherlands & many other European countries have laws against hate speech...the idea that we have the right to speak as hatefully as we want to does not sound like freedom to me--what about the freedom of those targeted and profoundly affected by this kind of speech?
Thank you snowball and clay ball. I just do not understand this new attitude that everything has to remain the same as it has been in spite of the fact that everything is crumbling around us. The Constitution was meant to be a living, changing document. That's why there are amendments. I guess it's old enough now, to be used like the Bible. People take parts that suit their own needs and hide behind the passages to defend absolutely indefensible consequences.
I agree with you completely but would like to call your attention to the just passed Local Community Radio Act. It's a good deal for progressives. You might want to check out the Promethius Radio Project. It's a small step but one worth checking out.
Thank you latethink! I just mentioned that yesterday. It's on my computer hard drive somewhere among a zillion other things! We DO need to level the playing field!
Yes, with freedom comes responsibility. We've heard that from those who are willing to be scourged by the media pundits, but we're still having trouble understanding what it means, aren't we? We forget that second piece so often--the responsibility part. We live in a country which allows us to do sooooo many things that would get us thrown into prison or even executed elsewhere, but we have lost the reverence and respect for that freedom, and fail to think before we take advantage of it. I don't know what the solution is, because we don't seem, even after last weekend, to be ready to take an honest look at ourselves. But thank you for challenging us to try!
Spirit Man....

You wrote "... I just do not understand this new attitude that everything has to remain the same as it has been in spite of the fact that everything is crumbling around us. The Constitution was meant to be a living, changing document..."

You can thank Bill Clinton for signing the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which led to the consolidation of companies owning broadcasting licenses. (from 50 in 1983 to 6 in 2007).

And, of course, you can thank Ronald Reagan for doing away with the Fairness Doctrine of 1949, which mandated that broadcasters using the public airwaves treat all political speech equally.

Thus, we have AM radio which is dominated by 6 large media companies which broadcast the likes of Rush Limbaugh 24/7 without any kind of opposing viewpoint.

The Fairness Doctrine was attempted by Congress to be re-invoked but was vetoed one time each by Reagan and Bush 41.
I'd much rather hear George Carlin's 7 words you can't say on television - than lies and absurdities passed off as thoughtful, intelligent discourse. Which is the true obscenity - it seems clear.
Well done post.
rated
The greatest danger we face in this country is not from Islamofascists or even from a nuclear Iran or North Korea. The greatest danger we face in this country is Fux "News". Fux's falsehoods and doublespeak are at least as insidious, odious, pernicious, and dangerous as the McCarthy witch-hunts -- and very likely much more so.

Fux operates on the same "principle" as McCarthyism, Fascism and Communism -- that is the Big Lie told so often and so brazenly it becomes "fact". No research needs to be done to confirm that charge, all this necessary is to try to carry on a conversation with a Becker, Birther, Bircher, or any other rtwingnut. These people live in a separate reality, one created all but whole cloth by the propagandists at Fux, and chief among the miscreants is Roger Ailes, a man so soulless he cannot see himself in a mirror. Well, at least it's certain he can't see his toes.

Still, I don't know that censorship of some kind -- even if it could be legislated (it can't) -- is the answer. I suspect there is only one way to deal with this obscenity, and that is thru civil lawsuits and boycotts of sponsors of the The Great Hatin'.
Thank you Tom. You make many good points. But on the thing about censorship I would disagree. I think the word "censorship" is simply another example of how the right has redefined words to their advantage. In a way, what I am proposing is the end of the censorship of ideas that are based on facts. That is effectively what they are doing. I am not proposing ideas be banned. I am proposing that some kind of mechanism be created that requires people in positions of power to have to back up or debate their claims and also allows those who challenge their claims, to do so in a public forum. What's happening in the media could also be construed as illegal under anti-trust laws. All of these protections have been vilified by the right under their redefinition of words. Everything that protects people, not corporations is considered evil.
The right is trying to demonize regulation as they have demonized smart people. We need regulation.