30% of Americans Want "Balanced" Blogging

Cutie Pi writes "In a recent Rasmussen poll looking at the public's attitudes toward a possible revival of the fairness doctrine by the Democrats, a surprisingly large percentage of those polled seek fairness doctrine mandates (originally intended for public airwaves) to cover the Internet as well. It is encouraging that a minority of people feel that way, but Democrats say 'hands-off the Internet ... by a far smaller margin than Republicans and unaffiliated voters. Democrats oppose government-mandated balance on the Internet by a 48% to 37% margin. Sixty-one percent (61%) of Republicans reject government involvement in Internet content along with 67% of unaffiliated voters.'"

republicans favoring less government involvement?

[moderatorrater]

But most republican politicians seem to like bigger government! I'm so confused...

Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen

[Grishnakh]

Republicans haven't been for smaller government since the 80s. Bush didn't start the current wave of neoconservatism.

Re:Democrats trying to turn us into a nanny state

[pin0chet]

You might want to read up on a concept we've got called Private Property. Bans on smoking in buildings owned by government? Fine by me. But dictating to an owner of private property that emitting certain types of smoke is illegal goes against the concept of autonomy and ownership. And don't even try the "But employees have a right to a smoke-free workplace!" line. It's simply not a justification for using the coercive power of the state. Should cops have a right to not worry about being shot? Should garbage collectors not have to deal with stinky decaying waste all day? If you choose to work in a bar, or a restaurant that allows smoking, then you are knowingly assuming some level of risk.

Re:This is a great idea and very important

[fishbowl]

>On the other hand, you can remove all the regulations that govern newspapers and tv stations and maybe we'll have more than a handful of those.

What regulations do you imagine, apply to newspapers? Or aside from broadcast spectrum, tv stations?
Do you honestly believe the US government regulates content (beyond the "compelling state interest" stuff?)

Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen

[Ztream]

As a citizen of one of said Nordic welfare states, I think most of us (including those who agree with their ideologies) consider both your major parties to be right-wing.
Accusing the Democratic party of being communist is like accusing Hugo Chavez of being a libertarian anarchist.

Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen

[Zeinfeld]

Yep, the part about massive defense spending is part of my point. But that's actually a Democratic thing. Remember, LBJ (who kept us in Vietnam) was a Democrat. Republicans have been anti-defense spending until recent decades.

At the start of Vietnam both parties had hawk and dove factions. Nixon was originally elected on his claim to have a secret plan to end the war!

During the LBJ administration the Hawk faction in the Democrats lost influence and they were routed almost entirely during Nixon. But there is an additional layer of complexity there as Nixon's big idea was detente with Russia and re-opening relations with China.

The big change came during the Carter administration with the invasion of Afghanistan. Both parties turned considerably more hawkish. Carter began the weapons build-up but as a tactical reaction to the Soviets. For Reagan the increase in military spending was strategic and ideological.

During the Bush administration the foreign policy has been directed by the neo-imperialist wing of the Republican party. They like wars, the more the better. Their war in Iraq has been a fiasco, which is why they want a new one in Iran, or Georgia.

Re:"Jigsaw elections"? You mean Electoral Eollege?

[Anonymous Coward]

First of all, we're NOT a democracy. Never were intended to be one. Shame that the public education system has so poorly informed you.

Don't forget that you have no Constitutional right to vote in a Presidential election. Each state legislature decides how electors are to be chosen. What we have, of course, is a system where every legislature has chosen to let the people decide by popular vote (thus your 51% winner takes all). Your legislature could change its mind tomorrow and you wouldn't be going to the polls to vote for President.

Did you also know that originally U. S. Senators were chosen by state legislatures? We need to repeal that stupid 17th Amendment so that states can have some representation in Washington again. Right now they have none.

While we're at it, why do you so strongly oppose somebody winning with 50% + 1? That's the only *democratic* part of our republic.

First Amendment vs. Fairness Doctrine

[Morty]

The Fairness Doctrine cannot be applied to Internet blogs because it violates the basic tests that the Supreme Court has come up with for regulating speech:

* TV and radio can be regulated because they are "pervasive" (the signal comes into your house whether you want it or not) and "scarce" (there is only so much useful spectrum in any given area, so only so many voices can be heard.) Internet blogs are not pervasive (you have to seek them out) and they certainly aren't scarce (anyone who wants to can build a blog using free tools.)

* Commercial speech can be regulated. Not applicable here.

* Dangerous/inciting/traitorous speech ("fire in a crowded theater", "clear and present danger") can be regulated. Not applicable here.

* Obscenity. Not applicable here.

Note that, unlike the Internet taxation issue, this is a basic Constitutional problem. Unless one of the rules above is violated, the Supreme Court will knock down any attempt to regulate speech on the Internet. So I don't think this much matters. Even if this were a majority of people rather than just 30%, they're not going to get any kind of law passed to regulate Internet blog speech.

republicans favoring less government involvement

[falconwolf]

Republicans haven't been for smaller government since the 80s.

Republicans haven't wanted smaller government since at least Nixon. Heck even Republican President Eisenhower, who talked about the Military-industrial Complex [wikipedia.org], made government bigger. Before him, Republican President Teddy Roosevelt expanded government.

Falcon

Re:Voluntary? Really?

[Reality Master 101]

Government grants this protection to business men so they can operate with immunity. Does this seam fair?

It is absolutely more fair than the alternative. Let's say you're the CEO of Ford, and someone has an accident and dies in one of your cars. Should the CEO be brought up on charges of Involuntary Manslaughter? On every single accident? Basically, every company CEO would be *personally* responsible for everything that ever happened in the company, whether they personally designed anything or not. Does that seem fair? You might be thinking, "Good! Then they'll be extra careful!" Except that it's literally impossible for anyone to be perfectly in charge of everything.

So make those directly in charge responsible? So, basically, you're saying that any engineer that works on a car is at risk of going to jail for any defect? Or any programmer that works on medical equipment? How would do it?

In the world you want, nothing risky would ever get created. Certainly no one is going to try creating a new drug -- you'd have to be insane, if the risk was murder charges. And look at the false charges from the silicone breast implants -- that was totally fraudulent. In your world, the designers and/or CEO all would've gone to jail.

There is a reason corporations exist. It's because society couldn't function without them.

In the free market, a *true* free market, there are no special protections awarded to people.

In a "true" free market, society falls apart.

Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen

[Irish_Samurai]

Then why is it considered by many for sex between two men to be immoral? The ancient Greeks had no problem with it. It used to be unethical to practice usury, now thats the standard.

I don't think it is as cut and dry as that. I think morals do happen to deal with the individual and its based on emotions. While people may speak of the concept of the "moral majority" they never say anything like the "ethical majority".

Actually, its funny that when I see a group of people talking about their morals, they seem to be like a mob of individuals all speaking their singular, personal beliefs. They just happen to be congruent with each other.

When people talk of ethics, they seem to speak as an individual communicating the the agreed terms of a larger community.

People don't seem to make ethics a personal deal, it's like they view it as a rule over many, but people see their morals as very individual and unique things.

Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen

[Colonel Korn]

Fighting in Georgia would be the first legitimate war we've gotten into since 1812.

I don't know about Georgia being a legitimate war for the US, unless you mean someone invades Atlanta and we defend it.

Unless some massive political manipulation went on behind the scenes, it seems like the Georgians attacked their "breakaway region" of South Ossetia, because Ossetia is pro-Moscow. They killed a fair number of people, though according to South Ossetian doctors interviewed today on NPR, the Russian claim of thousands of dead South Ossetian civilians isn't true at all, the reality being hundreds of mostly wounded Ossetian militia and Russian peacekeepers.

Georgia's action was pretty bad. They started this conflict, and I can't imagine they didn't expect Russia to react. Why did they do it? Did Russian spies instigate it to give Russia an excuse? I doubt it. I'm also guessing Americans didn't prompt it, or at least didn't want the Georgians to do anything at that time, since America seems to have been caught off guard. Of course, that could be an act, but I digress.

Then Russia overreacts, or crosses the line, or whatever you want to call it, and not only do they go occupy the pro-Moscow region, but they verifiably do kill a lot of civilians. Then they agree to a cease fire demanding that they withdraw to Ossetia and immediately follow up by deploying throughout Georgia, and they bring along Ossetians who are drunk with power and alcohol as they follow behind the Russian military forces burning towns, killing people, and generally showing themselves to be sick assholes. Until then I'd say the Ossetians had whatever moral high ground could be had in this situation, since they started it all off by being attacked by surprise, but you don't win a lot of sympathy by massacring your neighbors.

Now America has the choice of fighting in Georgia. It won't do it because it knows it would be terrible for the economy and probably require pulling out of Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention possibly prompting World War III. But even if there were no repercussions outside of Georgia, I disagree with you about this being a "legitimate" war for America. Georgia is an American ally and America has been rather public in urging Georgia to do things to spite Russia. Then Georgia attacked part of its own territory filled with people who want to be part of Russia, who are ethnically linked to the Ossetians across the border in Russia, and they did so probably because they thought they could pull a fast one while Russia was looking elsewhere. Russia certainly earns a ton of evil points, maybe as many as the U.S. did in invading Iraq, for its response. Then Russia earns a lot more evil points for their occupation. Yeah, America has been in Iraq for a lot of years now, which is very bad, but its managed to mostly, not entirely, but mostly be focused on rebuilding and improving local security. Also, despite a lot of expectations around the country and the world, America hasn't stolen Iraqi oil. Most economic trickery pulled off by the Bush administration in Iraq has been stealing money from American taxpayers and giving it to the companies run by or formerly run by Bush's cabinet and friends, while Iraq has been raking in oil money. I'm surprised that Bush has managed to resist the proverbial cookie jar that's right there protected by his own military.

So America has evil points for Iraq, Russia has, let's say, a comparable amount of evil accumulated in a very short period in Georgia, and they got those points by escalating a conflict with a vastly asymmetric response. Any American involvement in a Georgian war would necessarily be a further unjustifiable escalation, and I don't think America can handle being any more evil right now.

Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen

[SIGALRM]

You clearly know nothing of the history of the Vietnam War. During the Eisenhower administration, there were a handful of CIA propagandists serving the Diem regime, that's it. Kennedy, who basically bought into the Cold War policy of Eisenhower, drew the line against Communism in Vietnam since the Bay of Pigs was a colossal failure, as was the Berlin Wall and Cuba. In 1960, Kennedy sent the first 1500 troops into Vietnam, and it is accepted by most historians that the US involvement in actual combat was from 1963-1975. If you think the '54 election Diem canceled (not Eisenhower) resembled democracy, you are a living a fantasy. Ho Chi Mihn had a peasant revolt on his hands, and was becoming increasingly unpopular. You wanted to slime Republicans but just made yourself look ignorant instead. Use facts next time. Oh, and here's another fact: it was a Republican president who finally withdrew all American troops from Vietnam.

Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen

[Moridineas]

I don't disagree with you at all. Using your car to proclaim your political beliefs doesn't know any partisan boundaries.

HOWEVER, I've actually kept track at times, and I think my estimate of 99% liberal is not that off (at least in some of the places I've lined in the past 5 years--Chicago (duh), VA/DC (duh), North Carolina (not exactly "blue state")). Not at all arguing that nobody conservative puts on bumperstickers (my favorite example "Hippie Peace -- More dangerous that nuclear war") but that they do so in much, much smaller number than liberals. Furthermore I can't remember the last time I saw a car with:

a) multiple conservative bumper stickers (there's one with multiple liberal bumper stickers parked across te street from me right now!)
b) anti-liberal politican bumper sticker (on the contrary, I see many that specifically target bush, or cheney, etc)

Also, I've noticed, purely anecdotal imho, but anybody with multiple bumper stickers (even if they're non-partisan stickers) seems much more likely to be a bad driver :-P

Re:republicans favoring less government involvemen

[rfc11fan]

One minor adjustment, if you please: The day I was born in 1955, my father was serving with the U. S. Navy in . . . Vietnam. So the involvement was substantially earlier than the official historian's line would suggest.

Re:Clinton Defense Castration

[WillAffleckUW]

This is a lie.

I was serving in the Army from 1980 to 1989 (got married and wanted to settle down then), and the reality is that what got cut were mostly bogus military programs for Star Wars (which I worked on LRCSW), ships and planes we didn't need and couldn't use, and lots of expensive and very impractical mil hardware.

Instead of $10,000 laptops with removeable drives built to mil specs, we got $2000 laptops with removeable drives off the shelf under Clinton.

Instead of $250,000 fax machines with security that worked only 90 percent of the time we got $500 fax machines with better security off the shelf that worked 99.99 percent of the time under Clinton.

The LIE promulgated by defense contractors is that we got cut - but the reality is we got right-sized and more efficient.

Now, go enlist and stop whining.