Major politicial party attempts to censor free speech

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
That headline is accurate, but sounds pretty scary.

Part of the point of this post, apart from highlighting this incident, is to point out how something that sounds scary as it should, turns into people likely rushing to defend their 'side' once the specifics are listed - oh, it's MY party doing it, well then let's look for why it's a good idea!

One of the reasons not to limit false information too much - as I've said in a post arguing we be careful about limiting Fox lies - is that if you limit lies, then when the political powers that be can decide what is a lie, they have just gotten the power to censor the truth as well.

That's the case here IMO - the GOP calling an ad that tells the truth a lie and demanding that in American, the ad not be allowed to air, to discuss the issues.

Republicans should share in the outrage for this - the better ones will.

The ad attacks the Republicans for trying to end Medicare. They do. The Republicans try to lawyer their way into it being a lie - the new program they replace with Medicare, they'll still call Medicare, to Medicare wasn't killed; the woman in the ad looks old enough she's in the grandfathered clause before Medicare is ended. Whoop de do.

This is pretty outrageous as an attack on free speech.

The Republicans have shown they'll do about anything for power.

Supress voting? Check. Pass measures to make it harder to vote for the same purpose? Check. Commit historic abuse of the filibuster? Check. Blackmail the President threatening to block approval of all his appointments? Check. Shut down the government if their demands aren't met? Check. Fail to increase the debt ceiling and protect America's credit if their demands aren't met? Check. Send a horde of GOD Congressional staffers to riot and disrupt a reocunt of votes for President? Check.

There are many more, but now we can add free speech to the list of things they'd kill for power.

Here's a link to the story:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...2011/03/03/AGDHN3HH_blog.html?wprss=plum-line

Interesting coincidence, that a Republican (but Obama appointed, further endearing him to us progressives) FCC commissioner just voted to approve a mega merger by Comcast and then announced her resignation to join the new company as an executive - you might have thought Comcast would have done their friends a favor, showing the sorts of conflicts of interest that happen. For once, Comcast deserves credit for not doing as the Republicans demanded.

Do you support the party making this demand to censor free speech, whether or not you agree with them on the issue of Medicare?
 

a777pilot

Diamond Member
Apr 26, 2011
4,261
21
81
It's a bold face lie to say that the GOP plan would end Medicare, but then lying has never bothered the Democrats. It's just what they do.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
LMFAO!!!!

Politicians bitching about people lying, if that ain't fucking ironic as all hell I don't know what is.

With that said, they can seek damages via a civil suit if a judge deems actual damage has been done due to an intentionally untruthful statement but censoring a political opponent (if in fact that is what is being done, sorry I am tired and ain't reading the article) is flat out wrong and intolerable in this country. Call them out on their lies all you want, hold them civilly liable for damages, etc but I damn sure don't want a few assholes saying what is acceptable (or not a lie) or not regardless of who those few assholes are.

Everyone that disagrees with me needs to keep in mind that eventually those assholes that decide won't belong to your club and will be deciding in favor of those you disagree with.
 
Jan 25, 2011
16,816
9,164
146
You'd think after the mountainous pile of bullshit the GOP expelled about Obamacare during 2010 they'd think twice before something like this. Want to talk about trying to scare seniors...
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
It's a bold face lie to say that the GOP plan would end Medicare, but then lying has never bothered the Democrats. It's just what they do.

Never really bothered just about all of our current politicians including, but not limited to, the Republicans. Whats your point?
 

Jhhnn

IN MEMORIAM
Nov 11, 1999
62,365
14,681
136
It's a bold face lie to say that the GOP plan would end Medicare, but then lying has never bothered the Democrats. It's just what they do.

Sooo lame.

Substituting a different woman for your wife wouldn't end your marriage, either, I suppose...
 

First

Lifer
Jun 3, 2002
10,518
271
136
It's a bold face lie to say that the GOP plan would end Medicare, but then lying has never bothered the Democrats. It's just what they do.

End Medicare as we know it. People are happy with Medicare, particularly American people. They support it by super-majorities. No one really supports private Medicare with subsidies that everyone knows will mean less care. It's a Republican version of Obama's healthcare plan with gov't subsidies for private insurance. Which is why the healthcare plan needs to be overhauled with a public or single payer option like the rest of the perfectly healthy planet.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
That headline is accurate, but sounds pretty scary.

Part of the point of this post, apart from highlighting this incident, is to point out how something that sounds scary as it should, turns into people likely rushing to defend their 'side' once the specifics are listed - oh, it's MY party doing it, well then let's look for why it's a good idea!

Yea, but, well, you can't exactly make yourself out to be the biggest partisan on a forum, then turn around and expect people to take this one post - one post in which you thoroughly trash "the other side" - as seriously as you make it out to be.

Your general premise in all politics is that *anything* that promotes progressives over Republicans is fair game. No matter what that means may be.


How about this headline from the past?

"Bush calls for halt to Swift Boat ads"
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5797164/ns/politics/t/bush-calls-halt-swift-boat-veterans-ads/

How about this thread?
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=1387142


This subject matter is nothing new. But, you can make "the other side" look bad with this story, so you love it!


And if you want to be the hack you are, I could say it is within our free speech rights for anyone to request the banning of a tv ad. It is also within our free speech rights for any tv station to refuse a ban request.
 

Ape

Golden Member
Jul 29, 2000
1,088
0
71
He isn't. He goes around trolling every consertive and Rebublican in the sub forum, he is anything but non partisan.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
To be clear, I support the media having some standards, and applying them to an extent - things like their shows' coverage of an issue.

When it comes to paid political advertisements, I get more hesitant - what if the people, as in this case, are corrupt calling the truth false demanding it be censored?

Paid ads are a way to expose that, so it's dangerous to cut those off.

The Swift Boat Liars were spreading lies and deserved for that to be exposed - not covered as even 'one side of the story', but false. But if they wanted to buy ads to tell lies, paid for by the Koch Brothers through Karl Rove - I'd hesitate not to let them do so for that reason, though I'd encourage the media to cover the statements and expose them as lies.

Unfortunately our corporate media is loathe to alienate part of its audience by telling the truth. Much better to add more Survivor to the schedule.

We're giving the media dangerous power for them to really censor that speech.

Unfortunately, while I take that position, in the real world I think the rights I am defending are most of the time used to spread lies rather to expose them.

Just as the swift boat liars helped Bush get more votes, paid for by bad interests.
 

cubby1223

Lifer
May 24, 2004
13,518
42
86
The problem with this whole Medicare topic is...

It is very difficult to sort out what is truth, and what is political strategy.

Bottom line simply is, I do not trust your analysis of the situation. I do not trust the analysis of certain popular tv hosts, both on MSNBC, and on Fox.
 
Last edited:

ProfJohn

Lifer
Jul 28, 2006
18,161
7
0
Craig, ever heard of the 'fairness doctrine'??

Tell me which party supports it??

/thread
 

monovillage

Diamond Member
Jul 3, 2008
8,444
1
0
Here's what politifact says about the ad.
"The ad’s aged firefighter says, "Did someone call the fire department? Because it's about to get HOT in here!" We agree. Pants on Fire!"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ats-say-republicans-voted-end-medicare-and-c/

I once disagreed with progressive/Democrat posters about Politifact and was told by all of them that it's the first, last and only "fair" judge of political facts. Nice to see that some of them now have problems with it's accuracy. Funny that.
 

HamburgerBoy

Lifer
Apr 12, 2004
27,111
318
126
Where in the op's link is censorship mentioned? A "demand" to pull an advertisement should at least have teeth in the form of a law suit to be equated to censorship.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
The ad is a complete lie in every way, that much is a fact. I'm not comfortable with the government being able to censor things they don't like, but this isn't "the government", this is the GOP. If an ad airs that is a blatant lie, they should be able to stop it from running, just like anyone else should be able to stop false ads.

Of course I expect no different from the scumbags running this ad. Lying is probably the one skill politicians all over the world have perfected.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Here's what politifact says about the ad.
"The ad’s aged firefighter says, "Did someone call the fire department? Because it's about to get HOT in here!" We agree. Pants on Fire!"

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...ats-say-republicans-voted-end-medicare-and-c/

I once disagreed with progressive/Democrat posters about Politifact and was told by all of them that it's the first, last and only "fair" judge of political facts. Nice to see that some of them now have problems with it's accuracy. Funny that.

I haven't followed politifact much, but I find them wrong on the Ryan plan.

The ad gets the big points right, and some smaller points wrong.

Let's review the points.

The ad says the Republicans voted to end Medicare - and seniors will have to pay $12,500 if their policy passes.

First, the Republicans are pushing the plan to end Medicare. Medicare is a government program that provides a set of benefits covered, paid for by the government. That program would be completely gone when it takes effect - replaced by a program where seniors buy private insurance with a dollar value provided by the government that is thousands less than the amount now spent on medicare, and would leave them with a coverage gap increasing their costs.

Politifact says that if they call the radically new program that replaces the old one 'Medicare', they did not end Medicare. I disagree.

We have Politifact's opinion - Paul Krugman disagrees, too.

Mr. Ryan may claim — and he may even believe — that he’s facing a backlash because his opponents are lying about his proposals. But the reality is that the Ryan plan is turning into a political disaster for Republicans, not because the plan’s critics are lying about it, but because they’re describing it accurately.

Take, for example, the statement that the Ryan plan would end Medicare as we know it. This may have Republicans screaming “Mediscare!” but it’s the absolute truth: The plan would replace our current system, in which the government pays major health costs, with a voucher system, in which seniors would, in effect, be handed a coupon and told to go find private coverage.

The new program might still be called Medicare — hey, we could replace government coverage of major expenses with an allowance of two free aspirins a day, and still call it “Medicare” — but it wouldn’t be the same program. And if the cost estimates of the Congressional Budget Office are at all right, the inadequate size of the vouchers — which by 2030 would cover only about a third of seniors’ health costs — would leave many if not most older Americans unable to afford essential care.

If anyone is lying here, it’s Mr. Ryan himself, who has claimed that his plan would give seniors the same kind of coverage that members of Congress receive — an assertion that is completely false.

Politico itself admits the point of the ad:

"Yes, the Republican plan would be a huge change to the current program, and seniors would have to pay more for their health plans if it becomes law."

"The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) analyzed Ryan’s proposal and found that it will save the government money. But it does so by asking future Medicare beneficiaries to pay more for insurance."

It is simply quibbling over the word "end it", arguing that because it replaces it with something, it's not ending it; while they are ending it and replacing it.

Politico then takes issue with the fact the ad says seniors will have to pay an estimated $12,500, saying they'd have to pay part of that already.

That would be a valid point if the ad inaccurately said seniors have to pay $12,500 MORE; it does not.

Politico itself acknowledge the following:

- The number is accurate, from the CBO.

- Seniors would have to pay $6,350 MORE as part of that $12,500 than they would have to pay now - so the seniors' costs would about double.

That's what the ad says - what the total cost to seniors would be under the Ryan plan. Accurately, as Politico confirms.

From there let's look at Politico's summary of its disagreement:

"But we don’t agree with the ad’s contention that the proposal ends Medicare."

Covered above. Yes, it does, and replaces it with a new program that costs seniors more - shifting the cost of care more on to seniors - and cutting taxes for the rich by about the same amount it shifts costs to seniors, big coincidence there. As Krugman said:

"So you can call the new thing Medicare; you could also call an onion a rose. But a non-rose by the same name does not smell as sweet. "

Politico: "Additionally, images in the ad imply that current seniors will have to go back to work to pay for changes to the program. That’s not true either. It’s actually those 54 and younger who will need extra money. With its scenes of seniors going back to work, it seems intended to frighten those who are currently enrolled in Medicare. "

This a gray area. This very short ad does not explain the Republicans' cynical plan to try to get political support by 'buying off' seniors by not changing their benefit.

But neither does the ad say the time frame - clearly it's showing how people who will be affected by the plan will be, in a dramatic fashion. The ad is fine about later seniors.

So this is not really a flaw with the ad, other than not explaining it's talking about everyone in America after the current grandfathered people.

Doesn't change the point.

Politico: "Finally, the Republicans' vote was symbolic and didn’t actually change the program. When you add up all those distortions, we find the ad highly misleading."

This is Politico really stretching to try make a technical point that the Republicans voted on the plan they want, rather than an actual budget.

Politico is arguing that since Republicans would need the Senate and House to actually pass this, it somehow doesn't count and they can't be held accountable for it.

I disagree. If you want to offer any evidence that Republicans voted for the Ryan plan, but want to actually vote against implementing it if given the chance, go ahead. You can't, because that's not the case. This is Politico trying to make an issue where there isn't one.

And that's all they have.

So as I said, Politico actually confirms the main points of the ad - and makes a large issue of small ones.

Politico admits "the Republican plan would be a huge change to the current program, and seniors would have to pay more for their health plans if it becomes law", that the ad accurately estimates that seniors would have to pay $12,500 as their share, that "future beneficiaries would pay more for current levels of coverage, and that some will decide to go without any insurance", that "[t]he Republican proposal will end the aspect of Medicare that directly covers specific services, such as hospital coverage".

The ad's point was that Republicans want to end Medicare as the program it is, replacing it with a hugely different program that will costs seniors more.

Politico said that Republican want to 'end the aspect of Medicare that directly covers specific services', and will about double the cost to seniors, some of who can't afford it.

Not much error finding there.

If I were making the ad, I'd make some changes, despite the very short ad and benefits to keeping it simple. I'd want to indicate how much of the $12,500 was an increase (about half); I'd want to indicate that it affected people who are not 55 yet (though it's hard to feel too bad about not being too careful about pointing out this cynical attempt by Republicans to split their opposition by bribing them).

(I'd probably add something mentioning all the 'savings' of higher costs for seniors pay for the tax cuts for the rich).

But as I said those are minor issues, compare to the main points, which the ad is right on Republicans want to end the current program and replace it with one that shift costs to seniors.
 
Last edited:

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Where in the op's link is censorship mentioned? A "demand" to pull an advertisement should at least have teeth in the form of a law suit to be equated to censorship.

A political party demanding a media company refuse to allow their opponents to air an ad (that is accurate about its main points) because it hurts them politically is attempted censorship. Other things that would also be attempting to censor would be your lawsuit, or passing a law prohibiting airing it, or sending the military to force them not to air it, or nationalizing the media company and not airing it - but so is what they did.

Some censorship is arguably justifiable. Maybe you don't want actually, substantially false things aired. Or even overly dramatic things; when Democrats aired the commercial with a girl picking a flower and a nuclear cloud against Goldwater (the man had said things to raise questions about his having a low threshold to use nukes), Democrats pulled it after its first and only airing. Censoring things that call for riots and revolution and criminal acts, things that are obscene (child porn), there are a lot of areas to look at. But this is simply a party who is suffering politically for having its actions pointed out - by its political opponents, not at the Republicans would like them described - demanding its opponents be refused their right to free speech.

This isn't even some third-party - Code Pink, for example, was refused the right to air its ad, which is a third party like the Swift Boat liars - but this is a DCCC ad.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The ad is a complete lie in every way

So, Republicans aren't trying to end the program that provides guaranteed services called "Medicare" (whether or not it's replaced with a more expensive replacement)?

So, seniors costs won't be an estimated $12,500 when the plan is in effect?

So, no senior will be faced with having to come up with more money, when the costs are shifted onto them by thousands of dollars a year more as their share?

It's your post that's wrong - you can't back up your claim, you didn't even try to.

I'm not comfortable with the government being able to censor things they don't like, but this isn't "the government", this is the GOP.

I'll change the title from "the government" to "a major political party". Oh wait, I don't need to since I said that in the first place.

"If an ad airs that is a blatant lie, they should be able to stop it from running, just like anyone else should be able to stop false ads. "

Whether you feel that way or not, it's doing what I said, attempting to censor the free speech of the Democratic Party.

We can debate the line when that's a good idea, but people who draw that line far higher than this ad you can't understand is basically accurate, can't support that.

Of course I expect no different from the scumbags running this ad. Lying is probably the one skill politicians all over the world have perfected.

Funny, I don't see many posts from you about Republican lies. And not, like for Democrats, because they're more rare.

The Republicans have lied terribly about this issue, saying things such as - let's use factcheck, an organization that seems to do a bit better than politifact:

Ryan says his plan would not increase the debt. In fact, under his plan the public debt would increase from $10 trillion in 2011 to $16 trillion in 2021, by his own figures.

A GOP document defending Ryan’s plan wrongly claims that the budget "does not cut Medicaid" and that it "spends more on Medicaid each year than it does the previous year." That’s false. Ryan’s own projections call for slashing Medicaid below this year’s spending level for years to come.

Ryan says Obama’s proposed budget “commits seniors to bureaucratically rationed health care.” In fact, the new health care law states that the advisory board to which Ryan refers “shall not include any recommendation to ration health care.” Furthermore, the board members are to be primarily doctors, economists and other outside experts, not Washington bureaucrats.

He says the “principles of tax reform” in his plan are “identical” to those in the bipartisan fiscal commission. That’s misleading. Both would close loopholes and reduce tax rates, but the commission would raise $785 billion in new tax revenue from 2012 to 2020 for debt reduction. Ryan’s plan is revenue neutral.

(Neutral - take from seniors, give to the rich).

Let's take one where Ryan is accurate:

He says Obama’s budget “imposes $1.5 trillion in tax increases on job creators and American families.” But, as we written before, about half of that total would come from increases scheduled under current law.

So when the Democrats' ad accurately says 'seniors will have to pay about $12,500' and doesn't mention they'll have to pay about half of that already, that's a lie, but when Republicans accurately say Obama's budget "imposes $1.5 trillion in tax increases" and don't mention that taxpayers will have to pay about half that amount already, that's not a lie.
 

Double Trouble

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
9,270
103
106
I haven't followed politifact much, but I find them wrong on the Ryan plan.

Of course you do, you're a hack and they oh so inconveniently decided to have a view different than your ideology.

Much ado about nothing. If someone airs an ad that is a lie there are avenues for getting the ad pulled, and I don't have any problem with that. The GOP is not "the government", and like any organization they have a right to not have their image tarnished by lies in an ad. I doubt very much the GOP will get very far in that though, given the political leanings of NBC.

If government tries to censor something because it conflicts with it's message, then let me know and I'll be upset about it.
 

wuliheron

Diamond Member
Feb 8, 2011
3,536
0
0
Free speech, free markets, freedom of religion, its all the same crap and as often as not translates to "Free to do it my way and free to stop anyone who gets in my way".