Quote:
|
Originally Posted by C4 Diesel
Not true at all. First off, tell me where I said that the media had to be fair? I bet you can't quote me on it, 'cause I never said it. Secondly, I used the BBC of an example of a great, nonbiased news agency. I hardly think the BBC is utopian.
Freedom of the press would not be limited by a BBC-esque news agency. Anyone else would still be welcome to have their own news agency or report the news however they feel. No media organizations would be closed because of it. If anything, it would EXPAND the expressions of the press overall, so I really do not see how this could be limiting to the freedom of the press. We're not taking away anyone's rights to report the news here.
|
We will have to disagree on that one. I see a state-controlled press agency as a direct afront to freedom of the press, and I doubt I am alone on that one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by C4 Diesel
Please, save me the rhetoric. Are you angry that j-walking is illegal in most places, too?
|
I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by C4 Diesel
How is that any less of an infringement than putting a cap on it? That's still the governement saying "you can't do this". No donations just levels the playing field even more while completely eliminating outside influence. Even with a cap the election becomes somewhat of a popularity contest (based on popularity before candidacy). Recent history has told us that private campaign finance and political donations are used on the part of both individuals and corporations to sway a candidate's, legislator's, or even and entire party's viewpoint. Therefore the right to private contributions should be given less importance than the more noble cause of the right to a fair election. Rights can conflict, you know.
|
I don't agree with the cap. However, if I had to choose between not being allowed to contribute and having caps placed on my contribution, I would choose the caps. I guess I would rather have my rights reduced than taken away completely.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by C4 Diesel
And here we find that freedom of speech is generally held to be more important than the distribution of accurate, unbiased information by the media, and thus we can do nothing about it... except perhaps charter a BBC-esque news agency.
|
Yes, I do hold freedom of speech to be more important. Freedom of speech allows for the distribution of information. Accuracy and bias must be decided on by the consumer of the product. What I may find accurate, you may find inaccurate. Since there is no way to design a system that all people will believe as fair and accurate, we can only embrace our freedom of speech and hope the best.