Thursday, March 1, 2012

"Freedom follows fairness"--A letter this morning from Oregon's provocative science fiction and thriller author, Mr. Ing set out the delicate balance between personal liberty and civic responsibility. ************* "Prospects are growing that our government may censor more public speech, and worried conservatives charge that this is a slippery slope. Correct, and obvious: All political slopes are slippery. Our Supreme Court is now considering firm penalties for some demonstrable public lies, e.g. the "stolen valor" case. It is precisely to keep the playing field fair and unsloped that censorship is considered. An oft-remarked difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals have special reverence for fairness, while conservatives especially revere freedom. Can we have too much fairness? Surely not, and here you can see where I'm going. Laws against reckless driving, shoplifting, trespassing and, yes, public lies, barely touch the broad spectrum of abuses that erupt from people notable for such abuses. This is why Canada forbids Murdoch's Fox News to exercise the free excesses it enjoys on the U.S. public airwaves. The Canadian government chooses not to risk allowing an infamous abuser of facts to scream "fire" in a crowded theater, as it were. Apparently it believes that with enough fairness, freedom will follow." — Dean Ing, Ashland http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/12533.Dean_Ing

18 comments:

  1. What with bills invading a woman's privacy, the nation's bedrooms and urge to repeal DATA / not repeal DOMA, I guess we can safely put that old canard to bed.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, I agree Chuck. I think the author was quoting an old adage rather than fully endorsing it.

    Maybe conservatives back in the old days were more trustworthy...or not.

    ReplyDelete
  3. That "freedom of speech" argument doesn't work the same way in Canada, either.

    For instance, elections spending is largely government-funded, tight restrictions are placed on private contributions in election cycles (and the election cycle is usually limited to just 36 days because campaign spending IS so limited) and the national broadcasting network (CBC), which is heard everywhere across the country, is obliged to give equal air time to all the qualified candidates.

    That's completely different from our current "whoever has the most money has the most speech" arrangement.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I suppose that comes out of their Parliamentary system, which might be a good way to go election-wise but has zero chance of ever coming to be in the USA.

    I imagine many Canadians who want Fox can order up a home satellite hook-up system or surf over to Fox. com or You Tube and get all they want.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Not to stray too far off-topic, but 75% of Canadians live near enough to the U.S. that they can get American stations and most cable companies carry it, of course.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I guess Canada knows about lies and wont let them be told in their country...Fox is one big lie constantly. I wonder if they allow the fat man Rush to be in their airwaves...he is such a potty mouth its unbelievable.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Doug yeah there is this long standing federal agency CRTC which has been in place since many years ago.

    http://crtc.gc.ca/eng/home-accueil.htm

    ReplyDelete
  8. That's what I figured. Thanks, Chuck, for the info there.

    ReplyDelete
  9. They certainly have their legal problems in Great Britian with their scandal sheets. There are a couple actual journalists on there--e.g., Greta Van Sustren--but most of them like Sean Hannity and O'Loudmouth are little more than propaganda mouth-pieces.

    Other cable shows have some real slanted types, but Fox invented slanted cable journalism.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Thanks Jack. Suffice to say If people in Canada really want Fox they can get it.

    ReplyDelete
  11. It is as like anywhere now one can tune into most any channel, but I am not entirely an advocate of the CRTC as there are some tremendous Canadians which have like any other country wished to emerge into America especially within the arts. The CRTC determines within radio for example of what can and not be considered "Canadian" music. When Bryan Adams became a musical star his content within Canada was not considered Canadian as back within the 80's there was a certain percentage of Canadian content that had to be played. I believe Adams took them to court and won the casel. Now it's very global and I am not sure if the CRTC examplifies the best organization as now we are within different times.

    ReplyDelete
  12. That part is odd. But America is such a big demographic market I'm sure there is a special interest in keeping national-related broadcasts and artists in the forefront.

    ReplyDelete
  13. I would have thought you couldn't have one without the other.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Me too, Iri Ani.

    But it's true that some see freedom as an absolute. Anybody I consider mature sees the need for balance.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Freedom set in stone doesn't sound very free.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You're right, Iri Ani. I think the author makes a good point about the difference between freedom as an open-ended license to do whatever you want (including theft or debasing public property) and freedom as doing nothing beyond what you would want done to yourself by someone else.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I think we have to consider the difference between freedom to....and freedom from ....before we can really talk about fairness.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Good point AA. The freedom of a few to purchase "free speech" over the airways and for courting politicans blocks out the nature of free speech for all others, to take just one instance.

    ReplyDelete