What Is the Price of Free Speech?

[Poltergist]

Even more interesting is that this same information is available to specific sectors of private enterprise and the markets.

I am a capitalist, but I am also a realist. One has only to examine the style and purveyance of advertising in all aspects of our media to see where government has learned its art of manipulation of the masses.

We have, in the past 20 years, seen this technique applied more and more to political advertising.

Take note of the strategies, and don't think for a moment that an ad that makes a ludicrous claim is done so accidental. The ad "Romney murdered my wife" was no accident. It managed to get people into an uproar about the falseness of the ad, but the people who social engineer, know that the exposure more than offsets the PR hit.

The strategies of information usage and collection have become very much a threat to people.

The technology is evolving faster than the laws to control it. It's a recipe for privacy violations and the newness of this technology means it's probably being employed with relatively little oversight. What's more, because the people employing these new techniques are in uncharted territory, they are bound to cast a very wide net when it comes to how they use it.

Targeted ads are great indicator of how this technology has progressed over the past few years. You've probably noticed many ads that target you interest with scary accuracy. Like political attack ads targeted based on your expected political ideologies. This is one indirect way the government can use this information without necessarily violating your rights to privacy on the books. I wouldn't' be surprised if they outright buy data as well.

 

[Pogo]

Actually? IT WAS an answer. Only ONE in MY FREE SPEECH I am exercising YOU happen to NOT like...not unlike what WE are discussing.

GRIN and bear it son.

You gave no answer. Because there isn't any.
You lost, now quit trolling.

This just in: fascism confirmed--

Hi, you have received -2636 reputation points from The T.
Reputation was given for this post.

Comment:
FOX NOISE? YOU are an IDIOT.

Regards,
The T

Note: This is an automated message.

Same guy crowing about "FREE SPEECH", spends all his energy trying to control that of others.

-- not to mention an emotional relationship with a TV channel....

Now, Pogo, I remember calling paul down for accusing you of being a communist, where can you prove that T is a fascist? Could we please refrain from labeling others until there is substantial proof back that up? People like Iceman and National Socialist are fascists, simply because they have clearly demonstrated such. T on the other hand is nowhere close to being one, that is unless you can prove convincingly otherwise.

"Fascist" in this case means jumping in trying to control everybody else's posts. Particularly in a "free speech" thread. He's a flaming hypocrite.
I don't tolerate control freaks. Fuck him.

 

[Unkotare]

Political Correctness is not new...and it originated in New England.

With the Puritans precisely who first spread their influence over Massachusetts; then over all of New England; and finally into cities they founded as they migrated West....like Chicago, Detroit, Cleveland.

The Puritans arrived in Massachusetts and immediately declared themselves the "Elect of God" which imbued them with moral and intellectual superiority. (They were copying the old Hebrews)

They found that Control was the best instrument for exercising this self-declared superiority. And soon, they were hanging women in Boston Commons for being Quakers instead of Puritans...and then hanging young people as witches for nonconformity; and then putting people in jail under the Sedition laws for criticizing President Adams from Braintree, Massachusetts.

Jefferson pardoned them all as soon as he was elected, but it has not taught these highbrow assholes not to: Always look down their noses at the folks in the Heartland of this country.

These people, pinheads, have now dispensed with God, but not their presumption of superiority and definitely not of Control....which they have learned to love.

The price to be paid for the freedom to express opinions different from these Jackasses in New England, and their dispersed spawn.....is to be marginalized as a bigot by these mean-spirited people who are certain that the right to opine stops as soon as you disagree with them...and since they control the mainstream media, it is a dangerous thing.

But, it is well with the fight. Its not a new fight....and neither is the enemy.

The Puritans were hardly what you would call 'liberal' today. Also, have you ever been to New England?

 

[NYcarbineer]

The issues are:

1. Does the University have the right to charge fees, including security fees, for a student event?

Probably 'yes'.

2. Does the Universtiy have the discretion to vary those security fees based on the University's assessment of the security risks based on the nature of the event?

Probably 'yes'.

3. Was the University within the limits of that discretion when they priced the security fee at $650?


The 3rd one I predict will be what the lawyers argue about, if it goes to trial. The plaintiffs will have to concede 1 and 2 above but then argue that 3 did not comply with 2.

The plaintiffs will likely argue that the fee was excessive compared to other fees for other events, and will produce evidence of those other events' fees to make that case.

The defense will counter that because the abortion issue has become a very heated controversy on campus, the increased security was a reasonable precaution,

and they will produce evidence to support that.

Again I believe the framework above best describes the argument.

 

[Pogo]

No, I simply chose Fox News as the basis for this article. I could have just as easily found an article about this from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC or other liberally slanted news networks, had they simply taken the time to report on it, I noticed they didn't take the time to. If you can find where any of those networks covered this incident in detail, I'd be happy to lend it some credence.

And why exactly would Fox lie about something like this? Are you accusing them of continually perpetrating a hoax on the American people? Tell me, would you apply this reasoning to those other liberally biased outlets? Or is this confined simply to Fox News? Your next answer will speak to your objectivity, Pogo. Take note that I'm not attacking you, I ask out of hope that such a line of skeptical reasoning is applied equally. I take everything with a grain of salt until it can be corroborated, I don't selectively apply this rationale to things or people I may not approve of.

I don't know if that's a question or what but I guess I have to restate this again...

(a) Fox Noise is known to have a slant. We all know that.

(b) it's been reported -- details still wanting -- that an event took place previously which, if true as described, would vitally impact the angle on this story.

(c) If that report is valid, it is not mentioned by Fox Noise;

(d) If that report is valid, for Fox Noise to mention it would undermine its own agenda of sensationalism, because it would extinguish the hair-on-fire outrage angle on which that sensationalism depends; it would make for "balance".

(e) Therefore we have reasonable grounds to reserve opinion until we can find out more, before we take a Fox Noise ball and run it to the end zone.

Fox Noise by itself? Damn right I won't trust it.

Ironic thread. What price free speech? One guy tries to jump in and control what everybody else says. Another guy gets offended if you suggest his source might need a second opinion.

Please.

Every news outlet has a slant. That is a fact.

There is no Fox Noise and they are no worse than any of the other outlets.

That too is a fact.

Doesn't matter; there is a report that would have dramatically impacted this story's angle, and they didn't mention it, and based on their agenda it's exactly the sort of thing they would omit. Moreover they are one source; a single source is a single source, and one is never enough, especially where there could be more to a story.

Therefore to suggest that other story should not be checked out and we should all just bow down before Fox Noise is insane. What are they afraid of?

Some "free speech" thread this turned out to be huh?

 

[Darkwind]

Even more interesting is that this same information is available to specific sectors of private enterprise and the markets.

I am a capitalist, but I am also a realist. One has only to examine the style and purveyance of advertising in all aspects of our media to see where government has learned its art of manipulation of the masses.

We have, in the past 20 years, seen this technique applied more and more to political advertising.

Take note of the strategies, and don't think for a moment that an ad that makes a ludicrous claim is done so accidental. The ad "Romney murdered my wife" was no accident. It managed to get people into an uproar about the falseness of the ad, but the people who social engineer, know that the exposure more than offsets the PR hit.

The strategies of information usage and collection have become very much a threat to people.

The technology is evolving faster than the laws to control it. It's a recipe for privacy violations and the newness of this technology means it's probably being employed with relatively little oversight. What's more, because the people employing these new techniques are in uncharted territory, they are bound to cast a very wide net when it comes to how they use it.

Targeted ads are great indicator of how this technology has progressed over the past few years. You've probably noticed many ads that target you interest with scary accuracy. Like political attack ads targeted based on your expected political ideologies. This is one indirect way the government can use this information without necessarily violating your rights to privacy on the books. I wouldn't' be surprised if they outright buy data as well.

I've actually studied it. And, if you have not eliminated the ads that are displayed right here on USMB, you'll have noted that the ads also target you, based upon search criteria and the past top 10 websites you have visited in a sliding average.

I do a lot of dabbling in Adobe software. I see a lot of ads targeting adobe on this website.

As for the technology moving fast. Yes, but we have to face a little truth here. A lot of what infringement that does occur, does so because the people who use the Internet are overly trusting of many of their favored websites and activities. In essence, they are the root cause. People allow their base urges to dictate their behavior, and that can be manipulated so that it continues.

 

[Darkwind]

I don't know if that's a question or what but I guess I have to restate this again...

(a) Fox Noise is known to have a slant. We all know that.

(b) it's been reported -- details still wanting -- that an event took place previously which, if true as described, would vitally impact the angle on this story.

(c) If that report is valid, it is not mentioned by Fox Noise;

(d) If that report is valid, for Fox Noise to mention it would undermine its own agenda of sensationalism, because it would extinguish the hair-on-fire outrage angle on which that sensationalism depends; it would make for "balance".

(e) Therefore we have reasonable grounds to reserve opinion until we can find out more, before we take a Fox Noise ball and run it to the end zone.

Fox Noise by itself? Damn right I won't trust it.

Ironic thread. What price free speech? One guy tries to jump in and control what everybody else says. Another guy gets offended if you suggest his source might need a second opinion.

Please.

Every news outlet has a slant. That is a fact.

There is no Fox Noise and they are no worse than any of the other outlets.

That too is a fact.

Doesn't matter; there is a report that would have dramatically impacted this story's angle, and they didn't mention it, and based on their agenda it's exactly the sort of thing they would omit. Moreover they are one source; a single source is a single source, and one is never enough, especially where there could be more to a story.

Therefore to suggest that other story should not be checked out and we should all just bow down before Fox Noise is insane. What are they afraid of?

Some "free speech" thread this turned out to be huh?

I can guarantee you, that in every news organization, there is information and reports that are deliberately left out of the story based upon editorial decisions. Fox News is not unique in this.

I trust none of them, however, I trust none of them equally.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Fuck TK -- I don't know if it's true or not, I'm saying we need to check it out. You're saying I should just put blind trust in a known prejudiced source? Really?

Isn't that the same as saying any other news outlet should just shut the fuck up, as Fox Noise has this covered?

Might be good enough for you, but I would never go with a single source, especially one I already knew to have an agenda. I find that profoundly naive.

No, I simply chose Fox News as the basis for this article. I could have just as easily found an article about this from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC or other liberally slanted news networks, had they simply taken the time to report on it, I noticed they didn't take the time to. If you can find where any of those networks covered this incident in detail, I'd be happy to lend it some credence.

And why exactly would Fox lie about something like this? Are you accusing them of continually perpetrating a hoax on the American people? Tell me, would you apply this reasoning to those other liberally biased outlets? Or is this confined simply to Fox News? Your next answer will speak to your objectivity, Pogo. Take note that I'm not attacking you, I ask out of hope that such a line of skeptical reasoning is applied equally. I take everything with a grain of salt until it can be corroborated, I don't selectively apply this rationale to things or people I may not approve of.

I don't know if that's a question or what but I guess I have to restate this again...

(a) Fox Noise is known to have a slant. We all know that.

(b) it's been reported -- details still wanting -- that an event took place previously which, if true as described, would vitally impact the angle on this story.

(c) If that report is valid, it is not mentioned by Fox Noise;

(d) If that report is valid, for Fox Noise to mention it would undermine its own agenda of sensationalism, because it would extinguish the hair-on-fire outrage angle on which that sensationalism depends; it would make for "balance".

(e) Therefore we have reasonable grounds to reserve opinion until we can find out more, before we take a Fox Noise ball and run it to the end zone.

Fox Noise by itself? Damn right I won't trust it.

Ironic thread. What price free speech? One guy tries to jump in and control what everybody else says. Another guy gets offended if you suggest his source might need a second opinion.

Please.

You dodged my question. Would you apply this "second opinion" reasoning if I had cited another source?

(a) The story is indeed true. I would not willingly lie to anyone about such an important issue. I have the complaint sitting before me.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/UBSLcomplaint.pdf

(b) You're using this reasoning to attack the veracity of my OP to avoid addressing the details that WERE provided initially.

(c) If it were mentioned by someone else, would it then be valid? That's incredibly presumptuous and naive, Pogo.

(d) So nobody else has a sensationalist agenda? Is Fox somehow evil and maligned? If they said the sky was blue, would you need some reason to doubt that assertion?

(e) There are no reasonable grounds for your premise. It is one based on a dislike, not on logic or a sound premise. Your constant issuance of "Fox Noise" as a pejorative makes my point.

(f) Would this reasoning be simply in respect to "Fox Noise" or would it be used in relation to other what you deem "untrustworthy" sources?

 

[Pogo]

Every news outlet has a slant. That is a fact.

There is no Fox Noise and they are no worse than any of the other outlets.

That too is a fact.

Doesn't matter; there is a report that would have dramatically impacted this story's angle, and they didn't mention it, and based on their agenda it's exactly the sort of thing they would omit. Moreover they are one source; a single source is a single source, and one is never enough, especially where there could be more to a story.

Therefore to suggest that other story should not be checked out and we should all just bow down before Fox Noise is insane. What are they afraid of?

Some "free speech" thread this turned out to be huh?

I can guarantee you, that in every news organization, there is information and reports that are deliberately left out of the story based upon editorial decisions. Fox News is not unique in this.

I trust none of them, however, I trust none of them equally.

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. I find it bizarre that TK's suggesting otherwise here.

 

[Unkotare]

I don't know if that's a question or what but I guess I have to restate this again...

(a) Fox Noise is known to have a slant. We all know that.

(b) it's been reported -- details still wanting -- that an event took place previously which, if true as described, would vitally impact the angle on this story.

(c) If that report is valid, it is not mentioned by Fox Noise;

(d) If that report is valid, for Fox Noise to mention it would undermine its own agenda of sensationalism, because it would extinguish the hair-on-fire outrage angle on which that sensationalism depends; it would make for "balance".

(e) Therefore we have reasonable grounds to reserve opinion until we can find out more, before we take a Fox Noise ball and run it to the end zone.

Fox Noise by itself? Damn right I won't trust it.

Ironic thread. What price free speech? One guy tries to jump in and control what everybody else says. Another guy gets offended if you suggest his source might need a second opinion.

Please.

Every news outlet has a slant. That is a fact.

There is no Fox Noise and they are no worse than any of the other outlets.

That too is a fact.

Doesn't matter; there is a report that would have dramatically impacted this story's angle, and they didn't mention it, and based on their agenda it's exactly the sort of thing they would omit. Moreover they are one source; a single source is a single source, and one is never enough, especially where there could be more to a story.

Therefore to suggest that other story should not be checked out and we should all just bow down before Fox Noise is insane. What are they afraid of?

Some "free speech" thread this turned out to be huh?

Would you like some cheese with your whine, miss?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I don't know if that's a question or what but I guess I have to restate this again...

(a) Fox Noise is known to have a slant. We all know that.

(b) it's been reported -- details still wanting -- that an event took place previously which, if true as described, would vitally impact the angle on this story.

(c) If that report is valid, it is not mentioned by Fox Noise;

(d) If that report is valid, for Fox Noise to mention it would undermine its own agenda of sensationalism, because it would extinguish the hair-on-fire outrage angle on which that sensationalism depends; it would make for "balance".

(e) Therefore we have reasonable grounds to reserve opinion until we can find out more, before we take a Fox Noise ball and run it to the end zone.

Fox Noise by itself? Damn right I won't trust it.

Ironic thread. What price free speech? One guy tries to jump in and control what everybody else says. Another guy gets offended if you suggest his source might need a second opinion.

Please.

Every news outlet has a slant. That is a fact.

There is no Fox Noise and they are no worse than any of the other outlets.

That too is a fact.

Doesn't matter; there is a report that would have dramatically impacted this story's angle, and they didn't mention it, and based on their agenda it's exactly the sort of thing they would omit. Moreover they are one source; a single source is a single source, and one is never enough, especially where there could be more to a story.

Therefore to suggest that other story should not be checked out and we should all just bow down before Fox Noise is insane. What are they afraid of?

Some "free speech" thread this turned out to be huh?

What turned out to be a premise has turned out to be one filled with presumptions and allegations. You are entitled to your own opinions, Pogo, not your own facts. There are many angles on this story, all of them you would readily dismiss without a second thought.

This is clearly an objective story, simply because I have sources like this one reporting on it, notice that this Campus Safety website has no political leanings to it whatsoever:

http://www.campussafetymagazine.com...d-for-Charging-Pro-Life-Group-Security-Fee.as

 

[TemplarKormac]

Doesn't matter; there is a report that would have dramatically impacted this story's angle, and they didn't mention it, and based on their agenda it's exactly the sort of thing they would omit. Moreover they are one source; a single source is a single source, and one is never enough, especially where there could be more to a story.

Therefore to suggest that other story should not be checked out and we should all just bow down before Fox Noise is insane. What are they afraid of?

Some "free speech" thread this turned out to be huh?

I can guarantee you, that in every news organization, there is information and reports that are deliberately left out of the story based upon editorial decisions. Fox News is not unique in this.

I trust none of them, however, I trust none of them equally.

Exactly, that's what I'm saying. I find it bizarre that TK's suggesting otherwise here.

You never made that assertion, Pogo. Your distrust is purely directed at "Fox Noise." I find it bizarre that you would suggest you apply your skepticism equally, when you won't even answer my question. All I want to know is if you would indeed apply this reasoning equally. So far, I have seen no indication of such.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Didn't we just establish there was a near-riot there the previous week on this same issue? Are we ignoring that?

Let me be the first to admit, I didn't look deeply into the story or look for corroboration, going so far by the OP's extract. But there's also the source -- Fox Noise. Some kind of cross check is definitely called for.

Did the pro-life group, or any of its adherents, start the "near-riot"? No? Then why would you penalize them simply for acquiring enemies who don't know how to behave in public? Try charging the fees for extra security to the people who actually break the law. I believe the law DOES provide for that sort of thing.

How is this a hard concept?

The pro-life group brought in anti-abortion extremists who go around making claims that an abortion is no different than gassing Jews in Nazi Germany.

They intentionally created an atmosphere of elevated tension.

That is patently false. Were this a pro abortion group, you would be eerily silent, wouldn't you?

 

[TemplarKormac]

I'm afraid it speaks of a strawman, because that ain't what I said; it's the words you put in my mouth.

Here's the actual point, and please -- just leave it unmolested...

It's been reported here (though at the time without a link) that the same university had a near-riot the week before involving the same kind of issue. That isn't mentioned anywhere in your article or OP but if true it dramatically impacts the issue. And it should be checked out, because I don't know about you but if I'm defending the university I'm all over that.

Fox Noise for its part has a long history of slant, and if that last-week's-riot story is valid, would be exactly the sort of angle it would omit. Therefore it needs to be cross checked. That has nothing to do with Fox being "conservative". It has to do with them being historically dishonest.

Having a "near riot" does not constitute the need to abridge (as Cecilie put it) free speech, nor does it allow for the selective application of an alleged "security fee" to insure for a disruption that never occurred; while such a fee was not required of anyone else. This "near riot" had zero impact on the decision by the university to charge this group such a fee. It was used as a scapegoat, just as you are doing so now.

"Fox Noise" told me what you views were. No need to obfuscate.

If you can prove that fees for security have never ever been imposed by UB management, for any other event, ever,

then you start to have a case.

Given that the Christians and the Atheists were not charged this fee to hold a debate, I'd say my case begins there. Thanks for playing.

 

[Pogo]

No, I simply chose Fox News as the basis for this article. I could have just as easily found an article about this from CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC or other liberally slanted news networks, had they simply taken the time to report on it, I noticed they didn't take the time to. If you can find where any of those networks covered this incident in detail, I'd be happy to lend it some credence.

And why exactly would Fox lie about something like this? Are you accusing them of continually perpetrating a hoax on the American people? Tell me, would you apply this reasoning to those other liberally biased outlets? Or is this confined simply to Fox News? Your next answer will speak to your objectivity, Pogo. Take note that I'm not attacking you, I ask out of hope that such a line of skeptical reasoning is applied equally. I take everything with a grain of salt until it can be corroborated, I don't selectively apply this rationale to things or people I may not approve of.

I don't know if that's a question or what but I guess I have to restate this again...

(a) Fox Noise is known to have a slant. We all know that.

(b) it's been reported -- details still wanting -- that an event took place previously which, if true as described, would vitally impact the angle on this story.

(c) If that report is valid, it is not mentioned by Fox Noise;

(d) If that report is valid, for Fox Noise to mention it would undermine its own agenda of sensationalism, because it would extinguish the hair-on-fire outrage angle on which that sensationalism depends; it would make for "balance".

(e) Therefore we have reasonable grounds to reserve opinion until we can find out more, before we take a Fox Noise ball and run it to the end zone.

Fox Noise by itself? Damn right I won't trust it.

Ironic thread. What price free speech? One guy tries to jump in and control what everybody else says. Another guy gets offended if you suggest his source might need a second opinion.

I don't know what the price is but a couple of you guys seem to be mimicking what you complain about the university doing -- trying to put the price out of reach.

You dodged my question. Would you apply this "second opinion" reasoning if I had cited another source?

Dodged what question? "Would a second source be a second source"? Of course. What else would it be? That's not the issue.

(a) The story is indeed true. I would not willingly lie to anyone about such an important issue. I have the complaint sitting before me.

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/UBSLcomplaint.pdf

STILL not the issue. We have all that.

(b) You're using this reasoning to attack the veracity of my OP to avoid addressing the details that WERE provided initially.

That makes no sense. English?

(c) If it were mentioned by someone else, would it then be valid? That's incredibly presumptuous and naive, Pogo.

Why?

(d) So nobody else has a sensationalist agenda? Is Fox somehow evil and maligned? If they said the sky was blue, would you need some reason to doubt that assertion?

What the fuck is all this emotional investment in Fox defensiveness about?
Fox IS your source. There are no other news sources involved whose sensationalist agenda is involved here. And the point is, this omission, if it is an omission, would fit Fox's political slant; therefore it's walking like a duck; therefore it's worthy of a second look.

What the fuck is elusive about that?

And why are some of y'all emotionally invested in one news company? If I brought a story by (pick one at random) ABC, do you expect I would have a meltdown and start negging people who dared to question Almighty ABC? I gotta tell ya, my world doesn't work like that. News sources are not my "friends". They are to be looked at with a critical eye.

Sorry this blind faith thing is really scary.

(e) There are no reasonable grounds for your premise. It is one based on a dislike, not on logic or a sound premise. Your constant issuance of "Fox Noise" as a pejorative makes my point.

It makes no point at all. I've been calling it Fox Noise since long before I came here. I play with words, and you know that. Deal with it. Frankly this whole emotional thing you guys have strikes me as kind of infantile.

(f) Would this reasoning be simply in respect to "Fox Noise" or would it be used in relation to other what you deem "untrustworthy" sources?

It applies to ANY source. Everything must be verified. No, Fox Noise does not get a pass.

 

[Poltergist]

I've actually studied it. And, if you have not eliminated the ads that are displayed right here on USMB, you'll have noted that the ads also target you, based upon search criteria and the past top 10 websites you have visited in a sliding average.

I do a lot of dabbling in Adobe software. I see a lot of ads targeting adobe on this website.

As for the technology moving fast. Yes, but we have to face a little truth here. A lot of what infringement that does occur, does so because the people who use the Internet are overly trusting of many of their favored websites and activities. In essence, they are the root cause. People allow their base urges to dictate their behavior, and that can be manipulated so that it continues.

I've dabbled a bit too in understanding these kinds of system. CNN boards for example appear to employ an API between their discuss board and the user. It allows them to have realtime control over how post show up, gain likes, and they know who is posting as the person post. All of that is meant to guide the behavior of the posters and create the illusion that there is a discussion board where their really is just clever political propaganda presented in a new way. Properly written post rise to the top, while undesirable ones wither based on what they want people to see when they view comments on a story. It's crazy what you can figure out with a few thousand post, a careful eye and some windows traffic logs.

But that is very true, people can fall into patterns that feed the data monster so to speak. Facebook is an excellent example. What with all marriages it's destroyed an affairs revealed by people constantly posting information about themselves. Of course, at the same time people may still mistakenly believe that the internet affords some anonymity as it did in the past. Which why they likely reveal so much.

For example, political commentary can often be extreme, but doesn't necessarily reflect a deeper truth about the individuals personality if they did so in anonymity. An astounding number of people turn into complete trollish jerks when they think no one knows who they are, but this might not even reflect how they deal with the real world.

Still you'd have to hope the people using the information would do so sparingly and with a bit of tact.

 

[Pogo]

Did the pro-life group, or any of its adherents, start the "near-riot"? No? Then why would you penalize them simply for acquiring enemies who don't know how to behave in public? Try charging the fees for extra security to the people who actually break the law. I believe the law DOES provide for that sort of thing.

How is this a hard concept?

The pro-life group brought in anti-abortion extremists who go around making claims that an abortion is no different than gassing Jews in Nazi Germany.

They intentionally created an atmosphere of elevated tension.

That is patently false. Were this a pro abortion group, you would be eerily silent, wouldn't you?

How do you know it's false?

Where's the report?

 

[Pogo]

Every news outlet has a slant. That is a fact.

There is no Fox Noise and they are no worse than any of the other outlets.

That too is a fact.

Doesn't matter; there is a report that would have dramatically impacted this story's angle, and they didn't mention it, and based on their agenda it's exactly the sort of thing they would omit. Moreover they are one source; a single source is a single source, and one is never enough, especially where there could be more to a story.

Therefore to suggest that other story should not be checked out and we should all just bow down before Fox Noise is insane. What are they afraid of?

Some "free speech" thread this turned out to be huh?

What turned out to be a premise has turned out to be one filled with presumptions and allegations. You are entitled to your own opinions, Pogo, not your own facts. There are many angles on this story, all of them you would readily dismiss without a second thought.

This is clearly an objective story, simply because I have sources like this one reporting on it, notice that this Campus Safety website has no political leanings to it whatsoever:

http://www.campussafetymagazine.com...d-for-Charging-Pro-Life-Group-Security-Fee.as

DOOD!? I'm the one asking for more information! How the fuck is that "dismissing" something?

Y'all need to figure out your own irony here. Seriously. This thread's a failure.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Dodged what question? "Would a second source be a second source"? Of course. What else would it be? That's not the issue.

No. I was referring to you using a skeptical line of reasoning.

STILL not the issue. We have all that.

What is the issue? You want to keep attacking the veracity of my OP, simply because I used Fox News as a source. What is indeed the issue?

That makes no sense. English?

I gave you the details, yet you continued to deny them purely because of "Fox Noise."

Why?

Why? We don't go through a debate making assumptions. We base them on facts. So far you've done nothing but attack my thread and my source with prevaricated judgements and assumptions.

What the fuck is all this emotional investment in Fox defensiveness about?
Fox IS your source. There are no other news sources involved whose sensationalist agenda is involved here. And the point is, this omission, if it is an omission, would fit Fox's political slant; therefore it's walking like a duck; therefore it's worthy of a second look.

What the fuck is elusive about that?

I have no "emotional investment" in anything. Believe it or not, I don't use Fox News to educate myself on issues. I hear the report and research it. I don't simply work off of one interpretation of it. In this case this is all I had to work with. I also don't understand why you keep referring to them as "sensationalists." Isn't the entirety of American media not based on some sort of sensationalism? Care to elaborate?

And why are some of y'all emotionally invested in one news company? If I brought a story by (pick one at random) ABC, do you expect I would have a meltdown and start negging people who dared to question Almighty ABC? I gotta tell ya, my world doesn't work like that. News sources are not my "friends". They are to be looked at with a critical eye.

Sorry this blind faith thing is really scary.

Like I said before, I don't hold any emotional investments in a news network. I have more important things to apply my emotions to. Nor am I deluded enough to apply the concept of "friendship" to it either.

It makes no point at all. I've been calling it Fox Noise since long before I came here. I play with words, and you know that. Deal with it. Frankly this whole emotional thing you guys have strikes me as kind of infantile.

Your playing with words is irrelevant. What you've done in the past is irrelevant. The fact you call them "Fox Noise" suggests something else entirely. This whole thing about "Fox Noise is sensationalist" can be seen as puerile at best.

It applies to ANY source. Everything must be verified. No, Fox Noise does not get a pass.

So why didn't you say so in the beginning? Why this particular attention to Fox? Talk about an emotional investment, Pogo.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Doesn't matter; there is a report that would have dramatically impacted this story's angle, and they didn't mention it, and based on their agenda it's exactly the sort of thing they would omit. Moreover they are one source; a single source is a single source, and one is never enough, especially where there could be more to a story.

Therefore to suggest that other story should not be checked out and we should all just bow down before Fox Noise is insane. What are they afraid of?

Some "free speech" thread this turned out to be huh?

What turned out to be a premise has turned out to be one filled with presumptions and allegations. You are entitled to your own opinions, Pogo, not your own facts. There are many angles on this story, all of them you would readily dismiss without a second thought.

This is clearly an objective story, simply because I have sources like this one reporting on it, notice that this Campus Safety website has no political leanings to it whatsoever:

http://www.campussafetymagazine.com...d-for-Charging-Pro-Life-Group-Security-Fee.as

DOOD!? I'm the one asking for more information! How the fuck is that "dismissing" something?

Y'all need to figure out your own irony here. Seriously. This thread's a failure.

"This thread's a failure"? No, your entire premise is a failure. You keep insisting Fox is wrong, you insist that you need more information perhaps to prove that they might be wrong and are somehow not reporting objectively. You create the illusion of objectivity when you do such. Sorry, Pogo, I crushed your premise with loads of case law and historical precedent. So now you resort to attacking the source as an alternate recourse.

Your entire premise about Fox News is a red herring. We weren't talking about Fox News, we were talking about free speech. Should I construe your assertions as an attempt to derail this thread, Pogo?