0 Votes
RE: A clarification
but this ad does not put that legislation in action.
But the point of the ad—stated or not—is to advocate anti-abortion legislation. The position of the people behind the ad isn’t “we think you should choose not to have an abortion”, it’s “we think you shouldn’t be allowed any choice in the matter”.
So here you are saying that CBS does have an obligation to air the ad because if they didn’t the free speech of Focus on the Family would otherwise be lessened?
No. I’m just pointing out that the blanket statement you made, that CBS has no first amendment obligations, is incorrect.
I think I agree with the FCC decision to drop the fairness doctrine, because if CBS had refused to run the ad, Focus on the Patriarchy could easily have found another venue to peddle their wares.
I do think that your position is wrong. We, as individuals, bear the responsibility to uphold ideals like free speech, separation of church and state, the presumption of innocence, and so on.
Those aren’t just “government virtues”, they’re pretty basic to secular ethics. I don’t want the government to say what speech is permissible, I want speech to be free. I want all voices heard. When I’m hauled before the courts, I don’t want to be just “technically” innocent, I want every man, woman, and child looking on to understand that the burden of proof must lie with the accuser—today’s practice of trial-by-media is destructive to our freedoms.
My dad always told me that if it had ever come down to the baby or my mom, he would have always chose my mom. He could make more babies. (Perhaps a harsh statement, but I couldn’t agree more).
I agree.
I’m very strongly in favor of abortion rights. I think that making abortion illegal does nothing to improve our society and does much to harm it. More than that, most of the country seems to agree with me—polls generally show something like 2/3 of Americans favor legal access to abortion in the first two trimesters (which is when the overwhelming number of abortions occur), and favor the right to have an abortion at any time to save the life of the mother.
Unfortunately, it makes a good button to push. Conservative voters can be prodded to show up at the polls and vote for the Republican, regardless of any other stance he takes, so long as he’s “pro-life” (a laughable term) and his opponent favors the legality of abortion under any circumstances. They don’t care that elected officials have made any serious efforts to change abortion laws in forty years.
RE: A clarification by Jackson
No. I’m just pointing out that the blanket statement you made, that CBS has no first amendment obligations, is incorrect.
But I still don’t see why they do have first amendment obligations. Is it just because they use the spectrum to broadcast, thus opening them up to first amendment constraints?
I do think that your position is wrong. We, as individuals, bear the responsibility to uphold ideals like free speech, separation of church and state, the presumption of innocence, and so on.
I can live with that. But what do you think my position is? I agree that individuals have the responsibility to uphold ideals like free speech, etc. I just don’t think CBS is an individual. Also, obligation has a different meaning to me than responsibility, so perhaps it is just semantics. There is a moral responsibility to uphold those, but not necessarily a legal obligation (for individuals or corporations). That is my position. My position is that if we are looking to corporations as our model (or even example) of how to act in our society, we are screwed because corporations only obligation is to turn a profit for their shareholders and sometimes not even that. Morally it would be great if they were benevolent, but they aren’t and I just can’t dredge up the idealism to even hope they act like that.
Those aren’t just “government virtues”, they’re pretty basic to secular ethics. I don’t want the government to say what speech is permissible, I want speech to be free.
Preaching to the choir, so it makes me think you grossly misunderstand my stance on this issue, which is understandable considering the only information you have about it is from limited posts on a discussion board about disparate topics. Again, my point, with which you disagree, is that I am not legally obliged to even be ethical (except in situations where this has been legislated), though I feel the moral imperative to be so. Maybe you are taking my two meanings and merging them in “obligated” or maybe we just disagree. Doesn’t really matter either way.