Free Speech Clip

[Eriol]

I saw this clip on Fox about free speech. It's less than 5 minutes long, and it's John Stossel introing his segment which will be on tonight: http://media2.foxnews.com/051810/051810_varney_stossel_FBN_051810_10-30_FBN_MED.mp4

It's also embedded in this blog page, where I got the link from.

It's an interesting little discussion, and considering it's not his show, but merely an intro, it raises some good points IMO.

 

[Espy]

In before "FAUXNEWSRAAAAAGE!!!!"

But seriously, I'll have to watch it when I get home, I like free speech. Isn't John Stossel an abc or cbs news guy? I thought he was on 60 minutes or something...

 

[drawn_inward]

I like John Stossel. His reports are always good.

A couple of those Fox talking heads are morons! I can't believe the crap they were saying. They are the reason I don't watch too much politically-driven t.v..

Apparently he's a Fox guy now.

It was announced in September 2009 that Stossel would be leaving ABC News and joining Fox News Channel and Fox Business Network.[6] He currently hosts a weekly one-hour show, Stossel and appears weekly on The O'Reilly Factor.

 

[Eriol]

Those Fox talking heads are morons! I can't believe the crap they were saying.

I'll agree that the one guy who was like "I don't know any actual numbers, but it's OBVIOUS that violence in video games, TV, and movies is making children more dangerous!" was pretty much owned by Stossel who said he HAD seen the numbers and would bring them on his show that expressed just the opposite (that youth crime & violence are declining). Most of the others made decent points about other aspects of free speech though. It was just that one person that showed his idiocy front-and-center.

 

[drawn_inward]

Those Fox talking heads are morons! I can't believe the crap they were saying.

I'll agree that the one guy who was like "I don't know any actual numbers, but it's OBVIOUS that violence in video games, TV, and movies is making children more dangerous!" was pretty much owned by Stossel who said he HAD seen the numbers and would bring them on his show that expressed just the opposite (that youth crime & violence are declining). Most of the others made decent points about other aspects of free speech though. It was just that one person that showed his idiocy front-and-center.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, I really just meant that guy. It was like he didn't have anything important to say, but wanted to be involved; like a little kid trying to talk while the adults have a conversation.

 

[Krisken]

I used to like Stossel, then I realized everything he does is to further his Libertarian view point. EVERYTHING. Much in the same vein as Penn and Teller, he starts with a conclusion and works his way backwards to support it.

I give him and Penn/Teller a lot of credit. They are very good at being convincing- until, of course, you look past the simple solutions they offer and realize there is a whole lot more to the discussion than what they are delivering. As it is, Stossel is the King of Strawmen.

 

[Soliloquy]

Ah, the strawman argument. I remember not too many years ago, when no one knew what that was, or how to pick it out.

I much prefer this more enlightened age.

 

[JONJONAUG]

I like John Stossel. His reports are always good.

This is the same Stossel that just stated that private business owners should be allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or sexual preference

STOSSEL: Because eventually they would have lost business. The free market competition would have cleaned the clocks of the people who didn't serve most customers.

KELLY: How do you know that, John?

STOSSEL: I don't. You can't know for sure.

KELLY: That then was a different time. Racism and discrimination was rampant. I'm not saying it's been eliminated. But it was rampant. It was before my time, before I was born, but obviously I've read history, and I know that there is something wrong when a person of color can't get from state to state without stopping at a public restroom or a public lunchroom to have a sandwich.

STOSSEL: But the public restroom was run by the government, and maybe at the time that was necessary.

KELLY: But that's not what Rand Paul said. Rand Paul agreed that if it's run by the government, yes intervention is fine. He took issue with the public accommodations, with private businesses being forced to pony up under the discrimination laws.

STOSSEL: And I would go further than he was willing to go, as he just issued the statement, and say it's time now to repeal that part of the law

KELLY: What?

STOSSEL: because private businesses ought to get to discriminate. And I won't won't ever go to a place that's racist and I will tell everybody else not to and I'll speak against them. But it should be their right to be racist.

Yes John, the free market would've allowed for minorities to have the same rights as everyone else. The centuries of discrimination in privately owned businesses where the free market was allowed to do whatever it wanted clearly didn't exist.

The guy is an idiot, stop listening to him.

 

[drawn_inward]

The guy is an idiot, stop listening to him.

The guy is an idiot b/c he isn't Progressive or b/c from that one comment that makes him a racist? You can take a footage from anyone in the media and find something dumb they've said. I agree there was a better way for him to say what he was trying to get across, but I wouldn't label him an idiot.

 

[Krisken]

No, he's an idiot because he pushes ideology and ignories the realities of existence.

Jay Smooth says it best when talking about comments made by Rand Paul-



Same shit, different shovel.

 

[JONJONAUG]

The guy is an idiot, stop listening to him.

The guy is an idiot b/c he isn't Progressive or b/c from that one comment that makes him a racist? You can take a footage from anyone in the media and find something dumb they've said. I agree there was a better way for him to say what he was trying to get across, but I wouldn't label him an idiot.[/QUOTE]

The guy's an idiot because he claims that market forces would naturally eliminate racism in privately owned businesses when the entire reason for the law in the first place is because this is blatantly false. He may or may not be racist, but at the very least he's kinda dumb.

 

[Eriol]

The last few posts result in "we don't like John Stossel, so we're going to ignore anything he says." OK, whatever.

Here's the interview about free speech from the blogger's website that I originally linked: http://ezralevant.com/2010/05/john-stossels-free-speech-spec.html

Whatever you think about Stossel, Ezra rocks. ALWAYS comes across well IMO.

 

[Krisken]

Not quite true Eriol, but that's ok. I'm used to people not reading what I write.

 

[SpecialKO]

The last few posts result in "we don't like John Stossel, so we're going to ignore anything he says."

You do realize that the last few posts have, specifically, taken issue with something he said, right?

 

[crono1224]

I used to like Stossel, then I realized everything he does is to further his Libertarian view point. EVERYTHING. Much in the same vein as Penn and Teller, he starts with a conclusion and works his way backwards to support it.

I give him and Penn/Teller a lot of credit. They are very good at being convincing- until, of course, you look past the simple solutions they offer and realize there is a whole lot more to the discussion than what they are delivering. As it is, Stossel is the King of Strawmen.

I'd like to say very few people go on TV (and certainly not on the 24 hour channels) other than to promote, even passively, their view points. Now chicken vs egg, would these people be allowed frequent air time if they weren't at least slightly more leaning one way or the other than moderate?

 

[Krisken]

In answer? No. Anyone who tries to be neutral on a cable news channel gets low ratings. Take Campbell Brown as a prime example.

 

[Eriol]

The last few posts result in "we don't like John Stossel, so we're going to ignore anything he says."

You do realize that the last few posts have, specifically, taken issue with something he said, right?[/QUOTE]
The point is that most of the posts seem to be focused around "I don't like what he's said in the past, so I'm going to ignore what he says now." I say that because few posts here have actually discussed what the clips are TALKING about. It's all focused on HIM, not on the actual issue.