Free Speech: Do We Really Have It?

[FreakyBoy]

Keith Olbermann's show has been abruptly cancelled. Official reports are that it is "mutual", but few people believe it. It is likely that Keith has been silenced because Comcast, who are currently negotiating purchasing NBC, is uncomfortable with his coverage.

With the airwaves of America controlled by corporate interests, focused on the bottom-line, ratings, and ad revenue, can we really claim to have the much vaunted "free press" others claim to envy us for? Newspapers, radio, television - all come with inherently corporatist, right-wing biases. Only the Internet seems free, and even that is currently under heavy threat in the Net Neutrality debate.

Some of you other posters have held up America as an example of Free Speech you wish you had, but I have to wonder: do we really have it?

[Crazed123]

We have guaranteed free speech in the public sphere. We just don't have much of a public sphere anymore.

[Jorodryn]

What crazed said, but with some caveats. Media is a business therefore they get to put out what is best for their business. They are a private enterprise. Therefore they can control what you say on their airwaves. Obviously, government can also control what you say. Look at the FCC. There are limits to what is put out over public airwaves. How does the Metallica song go? Freedom with their exceptions.

In essence, we do not have a complete freedom of speech. If laws like hate speech go forward, we will have even less.

Now for opinion. I may not like what you have to say. I may not agree with it. But it is my choice to listen to it or not. I know that we do not agree on quite a bit of governmental policies and such, but I like the conversations. I get angry sometimes, but I am passionate about what I believe, I'm fairly sure you are too. The discussions are good for me because I get a point of view that I normally may not get elsewhere. I'd hate to have that voice silenced because a law gets passed. I would hope that in that instance you would feel the same about my voice. Also, I am paranoid and I think if they start silencing one, they will soon come after me as well.

[chaosman]

Also, I am paranoid and I think if they start silencing one, they will soon come after me as well.

I don't really think that is paranoia. I think it is almost a certainty. It is the reason IMO that we have an amendment to protect free speech in the first place.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWRVbWMvi7c I know this is from a movie but it really illustrates my feelings on the subject starting at the 1:20 mark to the 2:00 mark.
As to the question:
Our freedom of speech is and has almost always been under attack. I do believe we have lost ground but as long as we keep fighting and never give up we can keep it.

[Marauder_Pilot]

A network banning content is not freedom of speech, because you don't have freedom of speech on that network.

You are free to say whatever you want as long as you have control over the medium. You can go out in the street corner and say, literally, whatever you want, so long as you don't overlap into, say, direct death threats and such-and those are covered by the criminal code, not the First Amendment.

However, every electronic and print communication medium is a commercial one-the owners can say or censor whatever the hell THEY want on it.

Freedom of speech is under attack when the private newspaper you print out of your basement gets you arrested (Assuming that newspaper wasn't just the words 'I'm going to kill John Doe' over and over again). Network censors are just political correctness.

Which is a whole 'nother stupid issue.

[FreakyBoy]

Strictly speaking, Murr? The airwaves over which our broadcast stations transmit is public space, not private. They rent the right to use the airwaves from us, but they don't own it.

[Crazed123]

Strictly speaking, Murr? The airwaves over which our broadcast stations transmit is public space, not private. They rent the right to use the airwaves from us, but they don't own it.

And this is precisely the problem. We hear all the time about the private ownership of media. What happened to our publicly-owned media? They were gutted by deliberate privatization efforts.

[CCC]

"As the Americans learned so painfully in Earth's final century, free flow of information is the only safeguard against tyranny. The once-chained people whose leaders at last lose their grip on information flow, will soon burst with freedom and vitality. But the free nation gradually constricting its grip on public discourse has begun its rapid slide into despotism. Beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his heart, he dreams himself your master."
- Commissioner Pravin Lal, Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri

The quotes from that game are wonderful. This one in particular, I think, is well worth thinking about.

I don't know how bad a grip corporate interests have on the American news media... but if it's more than a slight toehold on one or two papers or news programs, then it's a problem.

[Kea]

You know what? It's strange. Why should there be any reason to believe that a publicly owned media channel will be less biased and more amenable to free speech than a privately-owned one? After all, there are many, many places in the world where the publicly-owned media functions as nothing more than a mouthpiece for government propaganda. If your democracy is healthy enough that NPR and PBS can be seen as reasonably trustworthy and free of political strong-arming, you're in pretty good shape.

[FreakyBoy]

I don't know how bad a grip corporate interests have on the American news media... but if it's more than a slight toehold on one or two papers or news programs, then it's a problem.

Over 90% of America's media content is controlled by only five companies - Viacom, NewsCorp, Disney, Time Warner, and as of last Tuesday, Comcast/Universal.

If your democracy is healthy enough that NPR and PBS can be seen as reasonably trustworthy and free of political strong-arming, you're in pretty good shape.

Somewhat ironically, NPR and PBS are viewed as liberal bastions - cried as being part of the (non-existent) "liberal media" we're always hearing about.

They do tend to be relatively free of pro-American rah-rahing, though.

[Jorodryn]

NPR is a bigger propaganda machine than Fox News.

[weatherwax]

HAhahAHAHAHA! *snort* Wheee! *wipestearsfromeyes*

That was great, Jor. Thanks for that. Whew!

[angrysunbird]

NPR is a bigger propaganda machine than Fox News.

Quick question. How many Democratic candidates are being paid by NPR as contributers? How many Republican contendors for the presidential nomination are paid contributers to Fox. Compare. Contrast.

One of Mr Murdoch’s paid contributors, Sarah Palin, the former governor of Alaska, who is thought to be toying with a 2012 declaration, last month advised Christine O’Donnell, the Republican Senate candidate in Delaware, to “speak through Fox News” if she wanted to reach independent, as well as Republican voters. Ms Palin made her comments during an interview on Fox News.

The other potential 2012 candidates on Fox’s payroll include Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor, who has his own folksy television show every weekend; Newt Gingrich, the former speaker of the House of Representatives; Rick Santorum, a former senator from Pennsylvania; and John Bolton, who was George W. Bush’s ambassador to the UN.

You can tell the FT is a pinko rag because the paper is pink.

With regards to Freakyboys original point, I agree that access to media is not a free speech issue, no one is stopping you from talking, but that doesn't mean it isn't an important issue.The concerns are valid. I just don't think it really helps to frame it in the light of freedom of speech.

[FreakyBoy]

I agree that access to media is not a free speech issue

Since the Supreme Court has ruled (not recently; this is a long-standing ruling) that money is speech, I disagree whole-heartedly. Access to media is absolutely a free speech issue.

[Jorodryn]

Ok, I have to admit, my NPR comment was meant to get under people's skins. I do think they have a liberal bias though.

As far as Fox hiring possible candidates or even former candidates, I have no issue with this. Just like I don't have issues with universities paying sums of money to possible future candidates for 'speaking engagements'. I do however think both practices are ways of getting around campaign finance rules.