Fox News North can't launch because regulation against lying in the news won't be repealed

[Hauldren Collider]

How much more obvious can I make it that I really don't give a **** what people from centuries ago thought or wrote down?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOTUS#Current_justices

[Asher]

The constant deference to the constitution is starting to just get pathetic. Has it honestly never crossed your mind that it is flawed or no longer as relevant as it once was?

There's so much zealotry in you that I'm sure it's just sacred to you.

[Kuciwalker]

HC, you are being a dufus. If you want to quote a convincing case that rules permitting lying are socially useful, quote Mill.

[Asher]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SCOTUS#Current_justices

My God, you truly are stupid.

I know who HE is. But HE is just talking about THE CONSTITUTION and WHAT IT SAYS AND MEANS.

Are you saying Roberts wrote the first amendment? No? Then WTF are you doing.

[Asher]

HC, you are being a dufus. If you want to quote a convincing case that rules permitting lying are socially useful, quote Mill.

Ah yes, John Stuart Mill. Another modern thinker.

Yes, quoting him would be most helpful.

[Kuciwalker]

****, I can't actually find a nice brief quotable section because there's no way to cut it down without omitting really good arguments

[Asher]

There's no need to revisit 9th grade social studies.

Sometimes, long-dead philosophers can be wrong or no longer entirely correct as society changes.

[Kuciwalker]

Ah yes, John Stuart Mill. Another modern thinker.

Yes, quoting him would be most helpful.

I'm curious what facts you think have changed since he wrote his arguments, and why that would make them any less valid now.

[Kuciwalker]

There's no need to revisit 9th grade social studies.

Maybe not for me, but you pretty clearly need some review.

[Asher]

Maybe not for me, but you pretty clearly need some review.

The fact that I don't necessarily agree with him doesn't mean I never read or studied his work.

Let's ignore the theory from centuries ago and focus on the present. Do you think Fox News is a valuable contribution to American society? Do you see good come out of lying to the public to spread an ideology?

[Kuciwalker]

I'm still not clear on what about it being from "centuries ago" makes it inapplicable.

[Asher]

I'm still not clear on what about it being from "centuries ago" makes it inapplicable.

Even if it was modern, it's one man's opinion.

You can't simply point to one man as your argument and think that cuts the mustard.

I want you to answer a simple question. Do you think the American public is better off with a channel that lies to the public and misleads them for the purposes of spreading an ideology, or with a channel whose mandate was simply reporting factual events and information in an unbiased fashion?

Consider that Americans select their government based on their knowledge they primarily get from these sources.

[Kuciwalker]

The fact that I don't necessarily agree with him doesn't mean I never read or studied his work.

Let's ignore the theory from centuries ago and focus on the present. Do you think Fox News is a valuable contribution to American society? Do you see good come out of lying to the public to spread an ideology?

1) I don't have any direct basis for this, since never watch any network news, but I suspect Fox News is not especially more corrupted than the other networks.
2) I also suspect it is much less corrupted than most sources of news from earlier times. Even the "yellow journalism" of the industrializing period of the United States was socially useful.
3) Even if removing Fox News from the air were socially useful, adopting a general rule permitting the government to do so would be catastrophically harmful.

[Asher]

would be catastrophically harmful.

This is where you stop being a hypocrite and provide "data".

[Kuciwalker]

Even if it was modern, it's one man's opinion.

You can't simply point to one man as your argument and think that cuts the mustard.

I don't cite him as an appeal to authority, but as someone who wrote down my beliefs on the subject (for the most part) better than I could. If you can't refute his arguments then I don't see why you should reject them.

Consider that Americans select their government based on their knowledge they primarily get from these sources.

No, Americans select their government primarily based on the question of which party is in power and how the economy is performing, which is a socially useful strategy.