Free speech is near death in America to the cheers of NeoCons

[dmcowen674]

I've re-Titled this Thread to reflect the Growing death blows to the Free Speech of the Consitution of what was the United States Of America. May she R.I.P. :

4-19-2004 Georgia Passes Laws Limiting Protests

BRUNSWICK, Ga. - Robert Randall never knew free speech could cost so much ? in dollars and in compromises ? until he tried to organize a large-scale, peaceful demonstration for this summer's G-8 summit.

Organizers of protests like Randall's "G-8 Carnival" must put up refundable deposits equal to the city's estimated cost for clean up and police protection. Demonstrations may only last 2 hours, 30 minutes. Signs and banners may not be carried on sticks that might be brandished as weapons. And the signs may not be larger than 2-by-3 feet.

City officials have said that protesters wanting to use public parks will be charged the same fees ? $150 to $700 per day ? as people renting those spaces for private events such as weddings. Groups of 150 or more must pay maintenance deposits of $1.50 per head.

"It makes it impossible to express oneself through assembly or speech on public property unless you have money."

Observers say the cities' actions fit a national pattern of managing dissent with beefed up laws and police powers that constrict constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.


-----------------------------
A little background.

The local Paper here northeast of Atlanta was owned by Gannett until a month ago. A Chatanooga Tennessee ultra Ring Wing NeoCon Media Mogul bought out the paper from Gannett.

A local Baptist Minister by the name of Bo Turner fires off about bi-weekly pretty radical stuff himself such as the Ten Commandments issue that was debated here ad nausism.

The new owner of the paper sent him a letter stating they will no longer publish anything from him.

4-17-2004 <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20040417/opinion/250463.html">Turner's columns based on challenging views</a>

Your editorial page is going to lose much of its stimulation now that you have cut out Bo Turner's column. Without his spark, conformity will have free rein.

Who else but an ordained Baptist minister has the knowledge to point out the contradictions in the Bible, from polygamy to slavery? Or is the content of the Bible never to be questioned?

Is there to be only one religious view, only the conservative political view on your editorial page? That doesn't fit the proper role of a community newspaper that should be open to all views, especially unpopular views.

I thought that was the point of Our Views/Your Views, the stimulation of challenging ideas, the opportunity to learn. When everyone agrees, someone isn't thinking. We need more dissent not less; that's what our country was founded on.

Your own editorials in the past often helped do some of that challenging, and I was encouraged to think that this was one newspaper that allowed dissenting views. Now I believe that was just an aberration.

Please, bring back Bo!

Adele Kushner

Alto

4-17-2004 <a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.gainesvilletimes.com/news/stories/20040417/opinion/250464.html">Columnist's voice helps readers ponder beliefs</a>

Freedom of speech lies heavy on the shoulders of the press in a one-newspaper town. Columnists should be chosen for their various slants on issues. Bo Turner expresses an ultra-liberal point of view which serves to make all readers really think out their own beliefs and either change or strengthen them.

Your editorial standards might well be met by columnists with the same old song. This is not only "preaching to the choir" but exceedingly boring.

Joyce Tree

Dahlonega

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
A little background.

The local Paper here northeast of Atlanta was owned by Gannett until a month ago. A Chatanooga Tennessee ultra Ring Wing NeoCon Media Mogul bought out the paper from Gannett.

A local Baptist Minister by the name of Bo Turner fires off about bi-weekly pretty radical stuff himself such as the Ten Commandments issue that was debated here ad nausism.

The new owner of the paper sent him a letter stating they will no longer publish anything from him.

4-17-2004 Turner's columns based on challenging views

Your editorial page is going to lose much of its stimulation now that you have cut out Bo Turner's column. Without his spark, conformity will have free rein.

Who else but an ordained Baptist minister has the knowledge to point out the contradictions in the Bible, from polygamy to slavery? Or is the content of the Bible never to be questioned?

Is there to be only one religious view, only the conservative political view on your editorial page? That doesn't fit the proper role of a community newspaper that should be open to all views, especially unpopular views.

I thought that was the point of Our Views/Your Views, the stimulation of challenging ideas, the opportunity to learn. When everyone agrees, someone isn't thinking. We need more dissent not less; that's what our country was founded on.

Your own editorials in the past often helped do some of that challenging, and I was encouraged to think that this was one newspaper that allowed dissenting views. Now I believe that was just an aberration.

Please, bring back Bo!

Adele Kushner

Alto

4-17-2004 Columnist's voice helps readers ponder beliefs

Freedom of speech lies heavy on the shoulders of the press in a one-newspaper town. Columnists should be chosen for their various slants on issues. Bo Turner expresses an ultra-liberal point of view which serves to make all readers really think out their own beliefs and either change or strengthen them.

Your editorial standards might well be met by columnists with the same old song. This is not only "preaching to the choir" but exceedingly boring.

Joyce Tree

Dahlonega

oh noes, the sky is falling!

 

[burnedout]

Well Dave, there is certainly one way to "fix the wagon", so to speak: don't buy the paper and encourage others to do the same.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

The local Paper here northeast of Atlanta was owned by Gannett until a month ago. A Chatanooga Tennessee ultra Ring Wing NeoCon Media Mogul bought out the paper from Gannett.

so capitalism = end of free speech in your opinion?

I know that even you don't believe what you say.

 

[klah]

So we would have more freedom of speech if the government forced privately owned newspapers to publish things they do not want to?

OMG, the NYT won't print Ann Coulter rantings, that is censorship!!!!111

If you don't like it then start your own paper, or print flyers, or create a web site, etc.

 

[daniel1113]

Originally posted by: klah
So we would have more freedom of speech if the government forced privately owned newspapers to publish things they do not want to?

OMG, the NYT won't print Ann Coulter rantings, that is censorship!!!!111

If you don't like it then start your own paper, or print flyers, or create a web site, etc.

But its just not fair!!!!!!

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The local Paper here northeast of Atlanta was owned by Gannett until a month ago. A Chatanooga Tennessee ultra Ring Wing NeoCon Media Mogul bought out the paper from Gannett.

so capitalism = end of free speech in your opinion?

I know that even you don't believe what you say.

That's a radical interpretation of the quote.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The local Paper here northeast of Atlanta was owned by Gannett until a month ago. A Chatanooga Tennessee ultra Ring Wing NeoCon Media Mogul bought out the paper from Gannett.

so capitalism = end of free speech in your opinion?

I know that even you don't believe what you say.

That's a radical interpretation of the quote.

As opposed to the "radical interpretation" in the title?

CkG

 

[glenn1]

Who the hell buys the worthless rags that are local newspapers anymore, or for that matter watches the big network news shows or anything else of that mass-produced, cookie-cutter ilk? Hell, you can get better informed about the events of the day from 5 minutes online than you can by watching an hour of the drivel on CNN, and without having a political agenda rammed down your throat. Or alternatively, you can visit sites covering multiple points of view up and down the political spectrum and make up your own damn mind.

Long story short, only mindless robots rely on the news from their hometown paper, which wouldn't be worth anything if they gave it away for free, much less paying for the damn thing.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: cquark

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

The local Paper here northeast of Atlanta was owned by Gannett until a month ago. A Chatanooga Tennessee ultra Ring Wing NeoCon Media Mogul bought out the paper from Gannett.

so capitalism = end of free speech in your opinion?

I know that even you don't believe what you say.

That's a radical interpretation of the quote.

As opposed to the "radical interpretation" in the title?

CkG

Imagine if the original article had been "Censorship of American Papers - Free speech is near death Nationwide to the cheers of NeoCons" The the title of the thread would have been like " Alien Nazi's practice mind control through amazing new paper media devices"

 

[Jhhnn]

Despite the overstated title, and the blatant ad hom attacks against the messenger, media consolidation is a very big issue, particularly in some of our less enlightened areas... When Fox, Rush, and the local paper say the same thing, and you're inclined to believe it anyway, then it must be gospel... Right? Right!

With any luck, this will provoke some serious backlash- maybe the new owners' circulation will plunge, and they'll sell, or go broke, or a rival will spring up... the last being easier said than done, of course...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn particularly in some of our less enlightened areas...

What areas would you be referring to, Jhhnn ?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: burnedout
Well Dave, there is certainly one way to "fix the wagon", so to speak: don't buy the paper and encourage others to do the same.

Guess you missed the part where it said there is no other paper in town.

 

[heartsurgeon]

Guess you missed the part where it said there is no other paper in town.

let me get this straight, you can undoubtly buy USA Today, the NYT's, The Wall Street Journal, and countless other newspapers in this town, you can susbscribe to a zillion different magazines, and oh ya, i forgot to mention the bazillion different news sources available on the Internet. But you feel "Free Speech" is dead in this town.....well that's an interesting take on things.

finally, you denounce the "censorship" and loss of "free speech" because a local newspaper has been purchased by a "right Wing Neo Con"
but you did not denounce the "censorship" and loss of "free speech" when the newspaper was owned by Gannet.

in either case, a town with a single local newspaper was owned by a corporation, that had it's own priorities and philosophy, and biases.

but you only "denounce" the ownership when they have a philosophy that you don't like.

kind of a double standard eh?

 

[Jmman]

Where is the freakin radio program Dave was supposed to get? I think we need to put together a fund for him in order to speed up the process. Maybe he would stop cluttering up P&N with ludricous crap. I don't see anything in the above article that even involves free speech. I must be going blind.....

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: heartsurgeon

Guess you missed the part where it said there is no other paper in town.

let me get this straight, you can undoubtly buy USA Today, the NYT's, The Wall Street Journal, and countless other newspapers in this town, you can susbscribe to a zillion different magazines, and oh ya, i forgot to mention the bazillion different news sources available on the Internet. But you feel "Free Speech" is dead in this town.....well that's an interesting take on things.

finally, you denounce the "censorship" and loss of "free speech" because a local newspaper has been purchased by a "right Wing Neo Con"
but you did not denounce the "censorship" and loss of "free speech" when the newspaper was owned by Gannet.

in either case, a town with a single local newspaper was owned by a corporation, that had it's own priorities and philosophy, and biases.

but you only "denounce" the ownership when they have a philosophy that you don't like.

kind of a double standard eh?

Gannett pubished all that wrote in, this "Ultra Conservative" NeoCon as he publicly called himself clearly does not and will not publish all views, only those that "conform" to his liking. He is also anti-computer.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Jmman
Where is the freakin radio program Dave was supposed to get? I think we need to put together a fund for him in order to speed up the process. Maybe he would stop cluttering up P&N with ludricous crap. I don't see anything in the above article that even involves free speech. I must be going blind.....

Yes, the Sheep are blind.

 

[heartsurgeon]

He is also anti-computer.

Oh my goodness, the Anti-Christ!

 

[burnedout]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: burnedout
Well Dave, there is certainly one way to "fix the wagon", so to speak: don't buy the paper and encourage others to do the same.

Guess you missed the part where it said there is no other paper in town.[/quote]
'Letters to the editor' section, maybe?

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: burnedout

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
<blockquote>Quote
Originally posted by: burnedout
Well Dave, there is certainly one way to "fix the wagon", so to speak: don't buy the paper and encourage others to do the same.

Guess you missed the part where it said there is no other paper in town.

'Letters to the editor' section, maybe?[/quote]

Letters to the editor will be ignored if not "conforming" to the views of the paper.

Sounds like Duck, looks like a Duck, must be a Duck.

 

[nutxo]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Despite the overstated title, and the blatant ad hom attacks against the messenger, media consolidation is a very big issue, particularly in some of our less enlightened areas... When Fox, Rush, and the local paper say the same thing, and you're inclined to believe it anyway, then it must be gospel... Right? Right!

With any luck, this will provoke some serious backlash- maybe the new owners' circulation will plunge, and they'll sell, or go broke, or a rival will spring up... the last being easier said than done, of course...

yeah

Kind of like at the end of 60 minutes when the host points out that the same company that published Woowards book owns cbs. No conflict of interest there. Im a lot more worried about the radical left wing media than I am few radio shows and independent papers. The networks control the sheeple.

 

[dmcowen674]

4-19-2004 Georgia Passes Laws Limiting Protests

BRUNSWICK, Ga. - Robert Randall never knew free speech could cost so much ? in dollars and in compromises ? until he tried to organize a large-scale, peaceful demonstration for this summer's G-8 summit.

Organizers of protests like Randall's "G-8 Carnival" must put up refundable deposits equal to the city's estimated cost for clean up and police protection. Demonstrations may only last 2 hours, 30 minutes. Signs and banners may not be carried on sticks that might be brandished as weapons. And the signs may not be larger than 2-by-3 feet.

City officials have said that protesters wanting to use public parks will be charged the same fees ? $150 to $700 per day ? as people renting those spaces for private events such as weddings. Groups of 150 or more must pay maintenance deposits of $1.50 per head.

"It makes it impossible to express oneself through assembly or speech on public property unless you have money."

Observers say the cities' actions fit a national pattern of managing dissent with beefed up laws and police powers that constrict constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
4-19-2004 Georgia Passes Laws Limiting Protests

BRUNSWICK, Ga. - Robert Randall never knew free speech could cost so much ? in dollars and in compromises ? until he tried to organize a large-scale, peaceful demonstration for this summer's G-8 summit.

Organizers of protests like Randall's "G-8 Carnival" must put up refundable deposits equal to the city's estimated cost for clean up and police protection. Demonstrations may only last 2 hours, 30 minutes. Signs and banners may not be carried on sticks that might be brandished as weapons. And the signs may not be larger than 2-by-3 feet.

City officials have said that protesters wanting to use public parks will be charged the same fees ? $150 to $700 per day ? as people renting those spaces for private events such as weddings. Groups of 150 or more must pay maintenance deposits of $1.50 per head.

"It makes it impossible to express oneself through assembly or speech on public property unless you have money."

Observers say the cities' actions fit a national pattern of managing dissent with beefed up laws and police powers that constrict constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.

After come civil disobedience and a round in the courts this will be struck down... as well it should.

I feel like going to Georgia to protest not being able to protest by holding a protest right now!

 

[Shuxclams]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674
4-19-2004 Georgia Passes Laws Limiting Protests

BRUNSWICK, Ga. - Robert Randall never knew free speech could cost so much ? in dollars and in compromises ? until he tried to organize a large-scale, peaceful demonstration for this summer's G-8 summit.

Organizers of protests like Randall's "G-8 Carnival" must put up refundable deposits equal to the city's estimated cost for clean up and police protection. Demonstrations may only last 2 hours, 30 minutes. Signs and banners may not be carried on sticks that might be brandished as weapons. And the signs may not be larger than 2-by-3 feet.

City officials have said that protesters wanting to use public parks will be charged the same fees ? $150 to $700 per day ? as people renting those spaces for private events such as weddings. Groups of 150 or more must pay maintenance deposits of $1.50 per head.

"It makes it impossible to express oneself through assembly or speech on public property unless you have money."

Observers say the cities' actions fit a national pattern of managing dissent with beefed up laws and police powers that constrict constitutional guarantees of freedom of speech and assembly.

The neocons are only intrested in making sure we are all "saved" and do like the "God - Fearin' folk" do. And of course believing that the noecon leaders will help them get rich...... They follow like sheep. Not giving thought to the Liberties we all have rights to... What a shame, I will resist. I already lived through the time when they banned the "wizard of oz" and "james and the giant peach", I pray it doesnt happen again.


Shame.











SHUX

 

[herkulease]

good make these people pay.

I think they voted on this after seeing the crap pulled in SF last year. Lunatics trash the city, hold up traffic and the city ends up paying for it. When the budget gets cut to pay for these same people whine about it.

I'm all for free speech but people need to keep it orderly. Some people seriously don't care about your opinion. no need to block traffic and destroy things.