.

[Stop_the_War]

.

[Cocoa]

1. dems love the 1st amendment too much

I don't think you'd be able to find a single dem to sign on to banning Fox, or any other network. Never mind the fact that the courts wouldn't allow it anyway, it's just not something the dems would do.

[ComerPerro]

9. I agree with you there, but I personally don't think Faux should qualify

While I realize that they do have First Amendment rights, I just don't see how spreading lies and propaganda while claiming to be a legitimate news source should be considered protected speech.

But, the funniest thing (or scariest, or most disturbing, or whatever) is that Faux actually has in a legal record that they have no obligation to tell the truth.

I always point this out to conservatives I meet.

[eallen]

10. I hope that's hyperbole. 1st amendment doesn't mention qualifications.

[ComerPerro]

11. It is.

Its just my philosophy.

I believe Faux should be protected because of the literal meaning, but I think it is immoral and very wrong to spread lies while hiding behind free speech.

[forgethell]

15. Because to

Faux, and their viewers, they are not necessarily lies. Who gets to decide? You would have to convene a court for every news story.

No, the better way is to let people say what they want. Most people are smart enough to be able to tell when someone consistently lies. They then lose credibility.

What if the conservatives, while they hold power, were to do this to us? After all, they say we lie, so why not?

[Hugin]

2. Believe me... If we were to end up with a Dem prez...

They'd come back like a two-bit tree swing.

[meegbear]

3. They should be relegated to the back of the press room ...

where they and the other Jeff Gannons belong. Call 'em when you need a laugh.

[Avalux]

4. Can't be banned - 1st amendment

They must, however, be forced to disclose their agenda. No more of this fair and balanced shit.

[Padraig18]

5. We can't 'ban' stuff we don't like.

1st Amendment, ya know...

[eternalburn]

6. Fox shouldn't be referred to as "News".......

...perhaps just a renaming :

The Fox Propaganda Channel?

[SnowGoose]

7. All you guys make a good point about 1st amendment

and I'm not really sure what the original poster meant by the word 'banning', but I like to remind conservatives (most of my family) that only a fool would not expect a new victorious democrat to do to conservatives *exactly* what they have done to liberals/progressives for the last 4 years (think no-fly lists for activists, think character assassination, think ramming programs they hate down their throats, think surveillance, think IRS audits....).

I think it was Nietzsche who said 'when fighting monsters, take care lest you become a monster'. But I don't care anymore - perhaps it will take a monster to drag us back from where these monsters have taken us.

I'm sure that an intelligent and ruthless president could find all kinds of ways, short of banning a network, to make life very difficult for the conservative infrastructure - and I hope one does.

[9119495]

8. Not ban them, but the "security screening process

will take several months" as the WH did to Doud. Play ball Fox, or you can't play.

[Arkana]

12. No, let them be

It'll be fun to watch them flail around when suddenly they find that they're not an arm of the WH anymore.

[Anarcho-Socialist]

13. The fairness doctrine would hurt FAUX News more

Banning them would bestow martyrdom.

[forgethell]

14. Propaganda is

protected speech under the Constitution.

I think this is a major mistake. What goes around, comes around, and we do not need to be the ones to set our country's feet on this slippery slope.