FOX Banned In Canada

Jump to Last Post 1-50 of 69 discussions (271 posts)

76
Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years ago
It's a proud day to be a Canadian, as they've banned one of the worst offenders in all of a totally monopolized and corrupt system of mass media, Fox "news."

Three Cheers for Canada!!!!

http://sayitaintsoalready.com/2011/03/0 … newscasts/

We‘ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.– William Casey, Former Director of the C.I.A.
reply report
1. 77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Its okay...we have our own FOX...Sun TV
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Epic victory, I support free speech i guess but lying and hate speech no.
  reply report
  76
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh I support anyone's right to lie or say whatever - but presenting lies as "news" is different.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "but presenting lies as "news" is different."
  
  As apposed to what? If you're a news station and deliberately lying, you're hardly going to present your information and then say "oh by the way, this is a lie".
  reply report
  76
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's my opinion that most "news" is merely propaganda, but if you understand the demographics of Fox, then you understand that it's merely a tool of division.
  
  The USA must be conquered from within in order for the globalist to have their one world government, and FOX was a part of their program.
  
  Still is in the US. I'm proud for Canadians to be seemingly a people with a better government in some regards.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The same globalists powers have influence on the Canadian government too you know. Silencing speech, whether it be lies or not, should always be vilified.
  
  First will go will be Fox, and it will sound reasonable because Fox are not a very good new outlet.
  
  Next will be Drudge Report because of its more anti-authoritarian bend and slightly inflammatory articles.
  
  Next will be Infowars.com because they cover some things Fox News covered (like Fox or not, they are the only wing of the MSM who will question a Dem. government). Guilt by association. Never mind that Infowars is the leading exposer of corporate and government corruption on the internet and radio - if the government does't like it, it goes.
  
  Finally, anybody who protests this will be labeled a supporter of liars, and those voices will have to be silenced.
  
  We don't have freedom of speech so we can talk about the weather - we have it so we can ruffle feathers and change people's minds. It is up to us to choose who is worth listening to.
  reply report
  0
  DoItForHerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't agree with you entirely. In the U.S. we cannot lie if it hurts someone; this is a crime- like yelling fire in a crowded theater. It is called libel and slander. If I said that I eat caterpillars for dinner, that would not be a crime because that statement does not hurt anyone even though it is a blatant lie. (I eat ONLY the crunchy ones.)
  
  Fox is causing serious harm with its statements. It should not be above the law. I'm glad Canada banned Fox. The U.S. should be so ethical and have at least the same moral and legal standards in this case.
  
  Are there grey areas? Yes. No one will be in total agreement about everything. Free speech does not mean one can say anything; there are limitations.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Actually no, free speech is exactly that: you are allowed to say ANYTHING.
  
  Walter Block does a much better job than me at explaining why even the libeler must be defended in: 'Defending the Undefendable'
  
  "The reason civil libertarians have not been involved in the
  protection of the rights of libelers and slanderers is clear—libel
  is ruinous to reputations . . . But obviously, protecting a person’s reputation is not an absolute value. If it were, if, that is, reputations were really sacrosanct, then would have to prohibit most categories of denigration, even truthful ones. Unfavorable literary criticism, satire in movies,
  plays, music or book reviews could not be allowed. Anything
  which diminished any individual’s or any institution’s reputation would have to be forbidden."
  
  'Serious harm' is only as serious as you make it. The individual is in the best position to decide which information is best for them, even if you disagree with it.
  
  If you are talking about the obviously partisan political agenda Fox decides to spout, then that is down to your particular political prejudices, and really, nobody has any business deciding which kind of politics are put out by anyone.
  reply report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi inner. I am please to make your acquaintance.
  
  You are partially correct when you say, “ free speech is exactly that: you are allowed to say ANYTHING.” Actually, free speech is the right to speak without censorship but there is also another important component. Free speech does not absolve the speaker from responsibility for the results of his words.
  
  Falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater is speech that endangers people’s lives. The speaker is held responsible for the damages caused by his false alarm. A person who intentionally libels another is held responsible for the damage done by those lies. Denigration, unfavorable literary criticism, satire, etc that is truthful is not libel. Lies can destroy a career, a reputation, a business, or a family, causing serious harm and the law requires the speaker to make restitution for losses resulting from his words.
  
  I hope this clarifies this issue for you. I would hate to have you think you can say anything you please without regard for the consequences of your words.
  Do have a great day.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Walter Block also deals with this fallacy (seriously, read 'Defending the Undefendable'):
  
  "The rights of theater patrons can be protected without legally prohibiting
  free speech. For example, theater owners could contract with
  their customers not to yell “fire!” (unless, of course, there is a fire
  in the theater). The contract might take the form of an agreement, in small print, on the back of a theater ticket or a large
  message on wall posters placed throughout the theater, prohibiting any disturbance of the entertainment or singling out the
  shouting of the word, “fire!” But however the prohibition
  appeared, the contract would effectively put an end to the supposed conflict between the right of free speech and other rights."
  
  The victim who's career has been theoretically destroyed can take responsibility for this and ensure that all potential clients know that what the offender said was untrue - using his own freedom of speech. And also, you are absolutely right, the offender, now known for lying has to accept that responsibility and the fact that nobody will trust him anymore. There's no use whining to the government. If the lies are so evident that the government can prove that they are, it should not be any trouble for the victim to prove it either.
  
  I would also like someone to come up with a way a government can objectively judge what is truth and what is a lie. No response yet.
  
  And by the way, do you like to interact with liars? Did you need the government to convince you not to interact with him? Punish him by not listening to him. Punish Fox by turning it off.
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "I would also like someone to come up with a way a government can objectively judge what is truth and what is a lie. No response yet."
  
  We've been doing it for years. Each party presents evidence and arguments to a panel of disinterested people, who then consider the arguments and evidence, and decide whether one of the parties has been wronged or not.
  
  It's called a "trial."
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not really objective truth, depending on the whims of the jury and the judge. The point is is that it is the individual's responsibility to decide what is truth. I would much rather have the responsibility lie with collective individuals voting with their dollar than an easily corruptible court room. This is especially important because it involves freedom of speech. We must NOT set the precedent that it is okay to shut people up.
  report
  76
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Dude, in the USA, you are NOT allowed to say "anything."
  
  If you've not heard the "shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater" concept - then I'm assuming that you were absent the days that free speech was the subject in Government class.
  reply report
  0
  DoItForHerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Try yelling fire in a crowded theater and see what happens. Or, if you are a dude, try sneaking up on a women in a dark alley and tell her you are going to rape her while a law enforcement officer stands by and listens to you. Yell, "I have a bomb," on an airplane. Or for something more gentle, spread a rumor that your boss is a pedophile so that he loses his job, his family, and his standing in the community. Then admit it while providing proof against yourself. You will be liable for the harm you caused.
  
  That type of "free speech" will cost you plenty.
  reply report
  76
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Doitforher!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  
  A thousand cheers and three thumbs up (I owe you one!) - for adding your always well thought out and rational thoughts whenever I'm blessed to see them!
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "The U.S. should be so ethical and have at least the same moral and legal standards in this case."
  We used to. There were once rules about what a news outlet could present as news, and what had to be explicitly called out as opinion. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details. But the rules went away along with many rules on corporate behavior over the last 20 years or so.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Now, now - common sense won't get you very far in the HubPages political forums
  
  I have to say I am relieved that the OP is an urban legend. Like you point out, the precedent would be very, very worrying.
  reply report
  56
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why don't you point out some of those lies and hate speech for us?
  
  I am no FOX fan, they are a centrist Progressive news outlet after all, but they have as square a take on the issues as any other Mass Media org.
  
  CNN lies, MSNBC lies, they all lie... please accept the fact that they are all in the bag.
  reply report
  76
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ask and sometimes you shall receive. ...from me. I'm positive that you could have Googled "examples of Fox News Lies" all by yourself, but here's you a couple nice links:
  
  http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/2 … 27140.html
  
  https://www.google.com/search?ix=ica&am … +news+lies
  reply report
  56
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The huffington post is blatent Left wing propaganda.
  
  So that is useless.
  
  Also a page full of links which derive their cites and sources from the same site... mostly Huff... is a joke.
  
  Show mw a story that you can point to, and supply the proof that a LIE was spoken, not production errors of file footage.
  reply report
  0
  AntonOfTheNorthposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Believe what you choose. I had a look at both the raw video source for the Joe Biden thing on another site, and the fox news story.
  
  They lied. Plain and simple.
  
  Though I also agree that Fox is not alone in this. News is a for-profit business. If it gets readership and viewership, it gets printed and aired.
  
  No one really pays attention to retractions anyway.
  
  cheers
  reply report
  56
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I did not see a Joe Biden thing... link me to it please.
  reply report
  0
  AntonOfTheNorthposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Follow the links in Wesman Todd Shaw's post. You'll find it.
  reply report
  0
  jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  WHOBEYOUBE, You hide behind anonymity. There is nothing about you in your Profile. So how do we know anything about you and your background?
  
  We DO know that you are extremely Right Wing commentator in this Hub. You have a bias bordering on hatred for "Lefties" and "Commies." You seem unable to listen to or consider the views and opinions of anyone else, so why should we take anything that you say seriously?
  
  How about having a discussion for a change? Instead of an opinionated argument which gets us no where? Have a to-and-fro of questions and answers. Really consider each before you reply. Have the intelligence to say to yourself: "There is something new here which I never thought of before. I wonder if my view has been totally correct? I might have to change my view."
  
  Then, and only then, you might be giving substance to the concept of free speech.
  reply report
  73
  Quilligrapherposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hello WBYB,
  
  It is interesting that you respect Fox News and you believe “they have as square a take on the issues.“
  
  Lies and distortions are common from Fox News. For example, examine these on the air misrepresentations by Fox News personalities:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrdfRAaS … re=related
  
  As you can see and hear for yourself, the lies do not come from only one Fox newscaster. Here is a lie from Hannity:
  
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=en … 172eAPdPFo
  
  It would appear you are buying whatever it is Fox News is selling.
  reply report
  68
  AngelArsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Here's one. It shows MANY examples of times that fox news lied. They are completely, nonprofit and nonpartisan;
  
  http://www.factcheck.org/archives/searc … ;sa=Search
  
  Before you attempt to post another time wasting excuse of why you won’t accept them as a source, let me just say that it's pretty clear to everyone here that you DON'T want examples of fox news putting out lie and distortions. You know how to use a search engine and could find many examples of this yourself. Only an open-minded person would do that, which clearly IMO you have not displayed any trace of. You probably are associated with fox. That said, it’s clear that people are just wasting their time trying to explain the truth to you. That's fine, like an ostrich stick your head in the sand if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that fox has been caught MANY times distorting the facts of a news event. It doesn’t matter if you understand this because OPEN MINDED people are clearly sick of them, and are clearly taking steps to rid the world of fox news and their bias country by country. I know that you are not here to have a level headed fair discussion about fox news, so I wish you well and hope you enjoy your delusions, but just know that when and wherever your delusions hurt the world that my loved ones live in, that’s when I will protect them and support the actions of countries like Canada that banned such biased and distorted news organizations like fox. Take care.
  reply report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://hpmonitor.blogspot.com/2012/01/r … -jews.html
  
  http://liberalfail.com/2010/06/more-huf … -doing-it/
  
  http://theliepolitic.com/2009/04/the-li … dont-stop/
  
  http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/20 … -accusing/
  
  http://dailycaller.com/2011/03/28/huffi … ue-colors/
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "I am no FOX fan, they are a centrist Progressive news outlet after all,"
  
  What the...?
  
  What is this trend among right-wingers to label everything they don't like as left-wing?
  
  Freedom is slavery, war is peace. Repeat a lie often enough, and loudly enough, and people will start to believe it.
  reply report
  76
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh!!!!
  
  Sorry to hear that!!!
  
  I'd like to see some clips from that offending programme!
  reply report
  77
  sunforgedposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  do you? ... thats the first line of the linked article
  
  "News Corp., the parent company of Fox News, was hoping to open a propaganda branch in Canada — called “Sun News TV” (or “Fox North”). "
  
  different Sun TV?
  reply report
  77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's run by a conservative newspaper chain in Canada. Sun newspapers are tabloids but not owned by Murdoch as far a I know.
  reply report
2. 78
  psycheskinnerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Scroll down and you will see that the linked story was itself a lie--or at least factually incorrect.
  reply report
3. 67
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Congratulations to the Canadians!
  reply report
4. 59
  FloraBreenRobisonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This is halarious! Too too funny.
  reply report
5. 0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you take Fox away, then you'll have a one-sided view (call it whatever you want, truth or not) and that means that the channel that remains will spoon-feed the public whatever they want. That's too much power if you ask me. I'm not a huge fan of Fox news, but the fact that they refuse to give them a voice is not to be celebrated. Somehow, this reminds me of Cuba. It's pretty scary!
  reply report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hardly. Canada has a licensing system for broadcasters, and one of the requirements to get the license is that you can't go around lying and calling it "news." Fox obviously doesn't satisfy that requirement, so they don't get a license to broadcast in Canada.
  
  You can still see Fox's US stuff in Canada if you have a satellite dish.
  reply report
6. 77
  Bendo13posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Haha that's awesome! The only guy I like on that channel is the good old Judge, the rest are garbage
  reply report
7. 74
  Dale Hydeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  All mainstream news is "washed" and covering the truth about what is actually happening, and/or they "create" news to manipulate people to create a point of focus that detracts from the reality that is going on. Government controls mainstream media... This is factual, and proven through documentation.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Cool! Show us the documents, Dale!
  reply report
  74
  Dale Hydeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You can do a Google search, Randy. The information is out there. If you want me to do the search for you, well, I charge research fees.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No thanks, if you had a point you would have posted a link. I've already been on too many wild goose chases looking through right wing sites to waste my time on just your opinion.
  reply report
  76
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That I can not dispute or argue with.
  reply report
8. 68
  AngelArsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  This IS good news!
  
  Now the other countries need to follow.
  reply report
67
innersmiffposted 12 years ago
I wouldn't even object to anybody presenting lies as news, I just use my noggin and choose not to watch the offending station. The problem with this decision is that it sets the precedent that the ruling elite can decide what the people should watch.
reply report
1. 76
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No I disagree.
  
  The ruling elite OWN all mass media already. Fox is absurd in the way it spews outright lies as if these things were true, and that is blatant disinformation.
  
  Elected officials decided to get rid of Fox. Journalism has a code, and Fox doesn't abide by it.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Unfortunately the decision has now set a precedent - any news station that offends the establishment (possibly independent news stations) can be taken away based on the fact they 'lie'. How could a governing body possibly decide what is a lie and what is not? Do you think it beyond the realm of possibility that the government might accuse a station that criticises it of lying with no evidence to back it up, and take it away anyway? That is up to the Canadian public to decide, and vote with their dollar, not the officials, elected or not.
  
  In order to combat corporate media like Fox one needs to support alternative independent news that has honest journalism. The mainstream media is quickly losing its foothold due to the internet - real competition beats government intervention 100% of the time. Every time government has got involved in media, it has been a disaster for freedom of speech.
  reply report
  60
  fpherj48posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I see no reason to import a "quote." If you know what you said (and you SHOULD!) you know who you are.....Yes, Freedom of Speech is a wonderful priviledge (right)...however, every DECENT, HONEST, TRUE Patriot realizes that with each and every right IS a responsibility. Degree, quality and quantity of responsibility INCREASES with the power, content, intent, alleged authority & massive media reach of the "providers" of public information (NEWS). If one chooses to be forced-fed garbage, mis-information, twisted facts, as in SPIN...one also has that freedom/right. What a total waste of time, energies & brain power...for, what have you learned?....what of VALUE have you gained? NOTHING...nada, zilch...zero. You want noise? listen to some loud music. You like Liars, manipulators and frauds? Join a Fox News fan club...their newsletters make great toilet paper. Canada or ANY country should be very grateful to be protected from having their intelligence blatantly insulted. I insist on truth. I demand truth and honesty...facts, confirmation, proof, evidence and re-confirmation. What sort of individual welcomes and/or appreciates MASS bullcrap?
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And our responsibility as citizens is to educate ourselves enough to distinguish between what is truth and what is a lie. You as a citizen have a right to listen to lies if you want to, that much you agree with, but then go on to say that it must be censored? Well which is it?
  
  Demand honesty and truth by choosing to use services from honest and truthful sources. The mainstream media is failing precisely because it can't keep up with truthful journalism on the internet - no government intervention required.
  reply report
  76
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think you do not understand the problem here. My parents grew up believing everything said on television was true - and it's because there was some sort of integrity when they were young...but my parent's generation isn't so much online as my generation and your generation is, so they are NOT so aware that what they are being told is untrue.
  
  This is the problem. It's manipulation of persons who do not know that what they are being told might not be true.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The older generation are displaying a demand for that kind of information by the very fact that they are watching it. Who are we to decide that they can't watch it? It is their personal responsibility to decide what they should watch. They are actually perfectly capable of thinking for themselves - they were not coerced into it. They CHOSE to watch Fox.
  
  Now, as similarly responsible adults, it is our job to say "Hey, look Grandma, I know this stuff is entertaining, but it might not be the truth all the time, take a look at this Youtube video" etc. etc. Promote the honest journalists and eventually truth will out.
  
  Just look at what freedom of speech is doing already! It is ONLY the older generation that even bother to watch the mainstream media. That kind of journalism is becoming irrelevant next to the internet and individual research. No government law put that into place - just responsible, free, adults choosing to invest more time in journalism that they think is honest.
  
  It seems to be you who doesn't understand the danger of censoring the speech of ANYONE.
  
  'First they came for the communists, and I did nothing
  Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did nothing...' etc. etc.
  I'm sure you know the quote. If not, you can google it. It's a truism that if you don't protect freedom of speech for everyone, you can not honestly expect anyone to protect YOUR freedom of speech.
  
  Censorship, when precedented, will only benefit vested interests with the most money.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Censorship of harmful lies is bad thing to you? Would it be okay if Faux News made up a story about you and caused you pain or problems? Free speech, you know! Free speech is one thing when it's true. When it's false and may cause problems for many people and perhaps interfere with our government in a harmful way, that's something else.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "The reason civil libertarians have not been involved in the
  protection of the rights of libelers and slanderers is clear—libel
  is ruinous to reputations . . . But obviously, protecting a person’s reputation is not an absolute value. If it were, if, that is, reputations were really sacrosanct, then would have to prohibit most categories of denigration, even truthful ones. Unfavorable literary criticism, satire in movies,
  plays, music or book reviews could not be allowed. Anything
  which diminished any individual’s or any institution’s reputation would have to be forbidden."
  
  I highly doubt the government could accurately decide what is truth and what is lies since it is a vested interest in itself and represents vested interests. Individuals and news outlets, however, do not have an enforced monopoly on our decision making, so that gives us an advantage! The best judge of what is truth and lies is the individual. Fox has the right to lie, and we have the right to point out the fact that they are lying. Then it is up to the individual to decide who is right and who is wrong. It's just kind of . . . common sense. Freedom of speech enables the best environment for truth, because no vested interest can ENFORCE any particular viewpoint on the people.
  
  Fascism didn't come about because of freedom of speech, it came about because dissenters were censored. Stalin and Mao killed millions because no opposing viewpoints were allowed through the state media. Surely those dissenting opinions would be "interfering with the government in a harmful way", right?
  
  On the other hand, if any of you can give me a simple solution in which the government could recognise a lie objectively WITHOUT influence from vested interests, I might be inclined to agree.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  So you have no problem with your children being taught outright lies throughout their entire school terms? Is there no line you can draw to protect them? Who's going to say they can't be lied to entirely? Not you of course, it's free speech!
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have the right to review my children's teaching, lobby the Principal and school governors to change the policy and/or teacher and even take them out of that school if necessary. There are plenty of options available that don't require government intervention.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sure, you could home school them like some, but only if you can afford to stay home and not have to work while doing so. Unfortunately, not everyone can afford to do so and have to rely on the public school system to provide an education of sorts. You have to take reality into consideration occasionally.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well under my ideal system of public education, school governors would have some freedom over the policy and parents would be completely free to change schools if they object to the policy and/or teaching.
  report
  56
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  New Hampshire just passed that exact type of law, allowing the parents to change and choose the curriculla.
  
  We will re-gain control of our schools very soon now.
  report
  85
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Won't it be wonderful to have the freedom to mass produce uneducated fools?
  
  No standards, if the Bible was good enough for Pappy, it's good enough for Junior. None of that nonsense scientific malarkey..
  
  Ayup. We should absolutely have local standards determine education so that we can get to third word status even quicker and nobody will be educated enough to even care.
  report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Everything was going well until I got to the third paragraph and your superior intellect lost me.
  report
  85
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm sure that happens often.
  
  Don't worry, you'll be fine. Turn on Rush or Beck. Or Fox and Friends. Wallow. Enjoy.
  report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The very fact that you would like scientific standards in schools proves the fact that we don't need the government to do it for us. I'm sure there are millions of like-minded fellows like you who would like such things.
  
  Are you one of those people who argue that without the government, things just would not get done? If there is a demand for scientific schooling, then someone will be more than happy to supply it to you.
  
  'One-size fits all' schooling has failed spectacularly. In attempt to please everybody, we please nobody, and nobody gets educated in the process.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Try building an interstate highway without government intervention. It only takes one person unwilling to sell their land to screw up the entire project. Sure, you could go around the guys land but perhaps the next guy would want more money for his plot and so on....until the whole thing is hopeless.
  
  This goes for other things too. Public schools can't satisfy everyone's little idiosyncrasies. Religious folk dislike science when it goes against their beliefs. Never mind the knowledge accrued over the centuries by learned men. Let religion, politics, and greed set the standards for education, not knowledge. Religion retarded knowledge for centuries because of superstition and ignorance. Home school all of the kids, that's the way most got their education during the Dark Ages.
  
  Let hate, bigotry and ignorance be broadcast freely in the guise of real information to those who are easily swayed or know no better. We deserve what we get if we allow this.
  report
  72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "How could a governing body possibly decide what is a lie and what is not?"
  
  They can check.
  reply report
64
Greek Oneposted 12 years ago
As long I can still watch the Iron Chefs fight on the Food Network, all is OK.

Can't wait for 'Battle Ketchup"
reply report
0
Arlene V. Pomaposted 12 years ago
Hahahahahahahaha. You're killing me, Greek One and Wesman! And I haven't had my first cup of coffee.
reply report
79
Mr. Happyposted 12 years ago
Yes, I think you nailed the point Mr. Wesman. One can say whatever they w1ish - it's our right but it is not our right to spread lies and misinformation while calling it news. Cheers
reply report
56
WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years ago
Josef Stalin:

"America is like a healthy body and its resistance is threefold: its patriotism, its morality, and its spiritual life. If we can undermine these three areas, America will collapse from within."

Yes the Communists and America and European Leftists have fought this battle for 100 years... and they are winning.

Look around you America... Maxists and Commies in the white house and America's economy in a managed decline.

Welcome to the new world order.
reply report
1. 59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I see, this i the point o the anti fox news legislaion. I would love for you to provide evidence to me that Obama (or anyone else in the white house) is a socialist. Because I have read Marx and Engels and Trotsky and I think you are talking about things you don't understand.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  wait not just socialist but actually "commie" or Marxist.
  reply report
  56
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am positive if you read Marx and Engals and, trotsky, Antonio Gramsci and others, you would know what he is.
  
  I am very well aware of what, Marxists, Socialists, Fascists, and Communists are.
  
  All fruits of the same rotted vine.
  
  From Marx to Hitler, Stalin to Mussolinni... all the rotted fruit of Marxian ideology.
  
  And if we could read Obama's writings in college... we would see he is an ardent supporter of Marx and all his demented children.
  
  But those won't ever be released as long as the left holds control and he is in office.
  
  And I would guess since all those Canadians are fine honest folk... that they will tell Al Gore he is "persona non-grata" in Canada, also... right?
  
  I mean he makes millions off his lies, (ie; an inconvienent truth"... which was full of convienent lies.
  
  So he is banned from Canada also, correct?
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  AHHHH here we see the ignorance first of Hitler was a right wing fascist he despised communists (the first people to be sent to concentration camps in Nazi Germany were the communist opposition) and Mussolini even more so he ran on an anti communist platform. Don't be stupid enough to be fooled by the word socialist in the Nazi party name and don't confuse exact opposites on the political scale from left to right. Silly child. Next, no, there is nothing communist or Marxist about Obama and sometimes I wish there was. Communists believe in complete economic equality, in collectivization of agriculture, state ownership of all industry and the elimination of private business. To be a communist you have to believe in all those things to the absolute.
  
  Not a single thing Obama has done indicates he wants any of those, (and no wanting to tax the rich doesn't mean he is a communist anymore than reducing taxes means you want to get rid of them all together. If Obama is a Communist then people who want smaller government are anarchists and all the GOP nominees are fascists (except for Ron Paul who is an anarchist) just because your point of view is slightly closer to one particular extreme than the one that was recently prevailing doesn't make you an extremist in that direction or we would live in a world of nothing but political extremists where every religious man was a religious terrorist etc etc, your point is quite ridiculous.
  reply report
  56
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do you even know what Fascism is?
  
  No you do not.
  
  As an economic system, fascism is socialism with a capitalist veneer.
  
  http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/Fascism.html
  
  In Europe Hitler would be a right winger, as that is the Socialist right of Europe.
  
  In the real world he is a Socialist Fascist. Not only he but Mussolinni were ardent fans and followers of the marxist ideology. And those are just facts of history which cannot be denied.
  
  Read Mien Kompf and Hitler tells you himself he is a Socialist.
  
  he would make an excellent 20th century Liberal.
  
  You do not seem to understand that what the Euros call a right wing is not what Americans know of as the right-wing.
  
  there is no right-wing in Europe that resembles the rightwing in America... two different spectrums.
  reply report
  64
  Greek Oneposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  ....it's like right out of Animal Farm
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  @Who be you. "The streets of our country are in turmoil. The universities are filled with students rebelling and rioting. Communists are seeking to destroy our country. Russia is threatening us with her might, and the Republic is in danger. Yes - danger from within and without. We need law and order! Without it our nation cannot survive." -Adolf Hitler
  
  Hitler hated Communists. He thought that the goal of economics should be efficiency and not equality (he believed economic equality was WRONG) and that Communists were "rabble rousers" who interfered with patriotic production.
  
  Communists were the very first group to qualify for sentencing to death camps, even before Jews and Gypsies. This is because Hitler thought Communism was a Jewish conspiracy to take power. He recognized that Karl Marx, the founder of Communist philosophy, had been 100% ethnically Jewish, although an Athiest, and that many Jews in Germany were Communists. Non-Jewish Communists, according to Hitler, were even worse, they were "race traitors" (Himmler quotes) who wished to share power and wealth due the Aryans with "mud-people".
  
  NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO please show me these "facts" to prove that Hitler or Mussolini were communists I have just given you proof that Hitler wasn't.
  
  “Socialism is a fraud, a comedy, a phantom, a blackmail.”
  ― Benito Mussolini
  and here is evidence Mussolini hated socialists and communists (plenty more quotes from them where those came from. Please don't write anything on politics untill you have read a LOT more you are completely ignorant of the most basic political facts and definitions.
  I have given you proof of my statements, you do the same.
  reply report
  56
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Fascists hate all compitition for authoratative control.
  
  All... they remove all the obstacles.
  
  that does not negate the fact of what they where.
  
  What proof?
  
  Your opinion?
  
  Hitler based his collecticvism on, "Nationalism", that does not change the facts of what he was.
  
  "True, it is a fixed idea with the French that the Rhine is their property, but to this arrogant demand the only reply worthy of the German nation is Arndt's: "Give back Alsace and Lorraine". For I am of the opinion, perhaps in contrast to many whose standpoint I share in other respects, that the reconquest of the German-speaking left bank of the Rhine is a matter of national honour, and that the Germanisation of a disloyal Holland and of Belgium is a political necessity for us. Shall we let the German nationality be completely suppressed in these countries, while the Slavs are rising ever more powerfully in the East?"
  
  Gee that sounds like a typical hitler rant... along with this one...
  
  "This is our calling, that we shall become the templars of this Grail, gird the sword round our loins for its sake and stake our lives joyfully in the last, holy war which will be followed by the thousand-year reign of freedom."
  
  Can you see the Hitler in these statements? But both quotes were in fact written by Friedrich Engels, Karl Marx's co-author.
  
  But the most spectacular aspect of Nazism was surely its antisemitism. And that had a grounding in Marx himself.
  
  The following passage is from Marx but it could just as well have been from Hitler:
  
  "Let us consider the actual, worldly Jew -- not the Sabbath Jew, as Bauer does, but the everyday Jew. Let us not look for the secret of the Jew in his religion, but let us look for the secret of his religion in the real Jew. What is the secular basis of Judaism? Practical need, self-interest. What is the worldly religion of the Jew? Huckstering. What is his worldly God? Money. Very well then! Emancipation from huckstering and money, consequently from practical, real Jewry, would be the self-emancipation of our time.... We recognize in Jewry, therefore, a general present-time-oriented anti-social element, an element which through historical development -- to which in this harmful respect the Jews have zealously contributed -- has been brought to its present high level, at which it must necessarily dissolve itself. In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Jewry".
  
  Note that Marx wanted to "emancipate" (free) mankind from Jewry ("Judentum" in Marx's original German), just as Hitler did and that the title of Marx's essay in German was "Zur Judenfrage", which -- while not necessarily derogatory in itself -- is nonetheless exactly the same expression ("Jewish question") that Hitler used in his famous phrase "Endloesung der Judenfrage" ("Final solution of the Jewish question"). And when Marx speaks of the end of Jewry by saying that Jewish identity must necessarily "dissolve" itself, the word he uses in German is "aufloesen", which is a close relative of Hitler's word "Endloesung" ("final solution"). So all the most condemned features of Nazism can be traced back to Marx and Engels, right down to the language used. The thinking of Hitler, Marx and Engels differed mainly in emphasis rather than in content. All three were second-rate German intellectuals of their times. Anybody who doubts that practically all Hitler's ideas were also to be found in Marx & Engels should spend a little time reading the quotations from Marx & Engels archived here.
  
  So you need to go learn about Marx and Engals... and hitler and Mussollini.
  
  History speaks louder than all the Leftist propaganda together.
  
  And I have never said Hitler or Musollini were Communists.
  
  That is all you.
  
  And let us listen to Hitler himself on the matter of Communists:
  
  "There is more that binds us to Bolshevism than separates us from it. There is, above all, genuine, revolutionary feeling, which is alive everywhere in Russia except where there are Jewish Marxists. I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social-Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communists always will."
  
  Another quote:
  
  "Of what importance is all that, if I range men firmly within a discipline they cannot escape? Let them own land or factories as much as they please. The decisive factor is that the State, through the Party, is supreme over them regardless of whether they are owners or workers. All that is unessential; our socialism goes far deeper. It establishes a relationship of the individual to the State, the national community. Why need we trouble to socialize banks and factories? We socialize human beings."
  
  (Both quotes above are from Hermann Rauschning in Hitler Speaks, London, T. Butterworth, 1940, also called The Voice of Destruction. See e.g. here.
  
  So again I will tell you again, Hitler was a Socialist... though there are many schools of thought in that field, and they all have their differences and infighting, they are what they are.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh Christ this is hopeless... Are you aware Karl Marx was of jewish decent and both his parents were practicing Jews.... Look I give up, please study the left to right political scale see where different parties lie on that scale and understand he difference between liberal and communist then get back to me when you know what you are talking about.
  reply report
  56
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Those are direct quotes from Marx, Engals, and Hitler... so you need to go read up and learn.
  
  I will see you when you cease denying someone's own words.
  
  Direct quotes... and you reject them.
  
  That is absurd on its face.
  
  and you are not debating me about them... you are debating them
  
  You need to realize that the American political spectrum is NOT the same as European Political spectrum.
  
  That is very simple to grasp.
  reply report
  94
  PaulGoodman67posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Josak's right. Your knowledge of politics is poor in terms of your grasp of Marxism, Fascism and Nazism. They are entire philosophies with historical backgrounds. To take one or two sentences without any real context or background and say that those quotes prove one thing or another is the kind of thing that Fox News does. I am certainly not arguing in favor of any of those philosophies. Dislike Obama's politics, by all means, but it's silly to say he's a "Marxist".
  reply report
  60
  John Holdenposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.huppi.com/kangaroo/L-hitler.htm
  reply report
  85
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  A right winger talking through their hat? Not possible. They are all highly intelligent and possess encyclopedic knowledge.
  
  Just watch Fox and Friends to see prime examples. So smart it's scary.
  reply report
2. 59
  secularist10posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not Marxists in the White House, the Marx Brothers!
  reply report
  56
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am inclined to agree.
  
  It is a bad comedy in action.
  reply report
3. 72
  Jeff Berndtposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There aren't any marxists in the Whitehouse.
  
  But some people can say anything with a straight face. You must be a heck of a poker player.
  reply report
64
Greek Oneposted 12 years ago
don't forget the red M&M..

reply report
64
Greek Oneposted 12 years ago
..but Obama is a black. foreign-born Muslim....

just like Marx!
reply report
1. 59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I know right!
  reply report
2. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Looks like a War on Diabetes
  
  I wish
  reply report
65
maxoxam41posted 12 years ago
Nothing surprising! Quality and objectivity is not part and parcel of this network! Why would Fox assume that any country will accept trash as news. Other countries have other values, fortunately!
reply report
65
maxoxam41posted 12 years ago
In South Africa they were fascists, were they socialists? No. So "whobe" stop your bullshit!
reply report
1. 56
  WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Who are you referring to?
  
  England?
  
  England has been a psuedo-Socialist nation since WWI. A Conservative in Europe is not a Conservative in the US.
  
  So you stop your BS.
  
  There are no conservatives, as an American would understand the term, in Europe.
  
  Not unless they moved there from here.
  
  But I suppose you all know more than the Authors of the Concise Encyclopia Of Economics. Fascism is Socialism with a Capitalist veneer.
  
  Simple as that.
  reply report
75
skyfireposted 12 years ago
So now canada is going to replace FOX with yet another comedy channel?
reply report
65
maxoxam41posted 12 years ago
You seem not to have knowledge!!!!!! I won't dirty my hands! Enough of ignorants!
reply report
1. 59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I came t the same conclusion at about the same time, some cases are just hopeless.
  reply report
78
psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago
So I guess nobody even cares that the original story was completely false. We just all merrily repeat an argument this forum has already seen a million times.
reply report
1. 59
  Josakposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Nope no one really cares. The point is the opinions that are brought up if it was actually banned or not is all but irrelevant to those of us who dont live in Canada.
  reply report
2. 77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Can't let the facts get in the way now can we?
  reply report
3. 77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Can't let the facts get in the way now can we?
  reply report
77
Uninvited Writerposted 12 years ago
Why should we have these US imports in the first place...
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The FOX no longer guards the hen house in Canada?
  
  That is good news
  reply report
  70
  ausisposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Here in Australia we only get fox 8 simpsons 2.5 men etc fox sports & that's about it. so do they have an adult fox channel or something that everyone's upset about?
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  lol
  reply report
  74
  Eaglekiwiposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  
  Yep,but its hard to tell the difference tween that and the Simpsons
  reply report
71
Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago
What a day to declare yourself a proud Canadian. Thank goodness the Canadian government gets to decide what you choose to watch!

What a win for Freedom! Such a victory for Liberty. Now if the government will only tell you what to eat, read, who you can associate with and what you are allowed to say. Canada will be a Utopian society.

Proud I say, proud!

I sure hope they go through all the websites in the world so the poor uneducated Canadians do not accidentally come across an untruth on the web. Oh the horror of the thought......*shivers with fear*
reply report
1. 59
  FloraBreenRobisonposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  actually Wesman is Texan, born in US and doesn't live in Canada. I find the whole idea funny in a way as I never watched it the first place.
  reply report
  71
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I was not directing my post at anyone. I was just making a statement what a better world we could live in if we all just succumbed to Government control.
  
  I mean they are Government, not human beings like the rest of the chattel! Of course Government knows what is best for the individual. Government is easily the most efficient and benevolent entity on the planet.
  
  Common knowledge, everything a Government does is the best and most educated decisions that can be made. History bears this out, no Government has ever done anything wrong. Wouldn't it be a better world if the individual need not make any decisions of their own. We could all just be mindless little robots entertaining ourselves the way Government tells us, cuz Government always knows best!
  
  Government is pretty much a deity on its own.
  reply report
2. 59
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Reality Bytes, I have to disagree with you here. I doubt, given your responses in forums, and your hubs, that you rely on Fox News for, well, your NEWS. News should be factual, not disinformation. Don't get me wrong, Fox are not the only guilty party when it comes to spewing disinformation. But, if we turn this event on its head, instead of the gullible allowing BS to wash over them, they will have to search for news in alternative places, such as the net. That is of course, if they are really interested in world (or local and national events) When Govts start to truly censor the news on the net (I know there is talk about this) Then I will scream "Totalitarian" Until that time, removing the disinformation machine from the main stream is a positive, I think.
  reply report
  71
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are correct, I not only do not believe Fox though, I think the entire global media is under control by the same elitists. Media has become a propoganda tool used to sway the masses in to behaving in certain ways.
  
  I do enjoy the Freedom to make my own choices. For a Government to tell me what I should regard as truth is well....scary. It tells that a Government considers its citizens as imbeciles if it disrupts any choices that should be left up to the individual.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think your absolutely correct about the main stream media, and I can see where you're coming from with making choices. To be honest though, I don't think that a portion of society are imbeciles, but I think of my parents, and how gullible they were when it came to the news, they literally believed everything they were told. Not because they are, or were, imbeciles, but because they were honest and decent people. They were only educated until the age of 14 years, they didn't even know what critical thinking was, they were honest and thought people in power were, too.
  Not everyone has had the benefit of a good education, and the main stream media, shame on them, know this. So they have puked lies, for so long.. I want to see the end of that.
  reply report
  71
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If a news organization is capable of "lies'. Would it not also be possible that Government itself also holds that capability?
  
  What if government lied about a news organization telling lies?
  
  I personally want no decision of mine to be made by any entity. Nor do I trust government to protect me from untruths.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The fault then is on the consumer for not educating themselves enough. Liberty means responsibility for yourself. Don't start blaming others for your own dumb decisions. Fox News don't force you to watch them.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's hard to take your eyes off, of a car wreck
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  If you read my post (properly!) you will not that I was talking about my parents, who had a very limited education (for the most part because they were educated during the second world war) They both left school exactly one year before the war ended. And, what's with the dumb decisions comment?? I don't watch Fox news, and who exactly was I blaming?
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You're essentially blaming the government for not deciding what you and/your parents should watch (the law is the same for each individual i.e. you wish to restrict your own right to watch Fox News as well as your parents). I don't want to judge anybody, but it is their responsibility to watch what they think is best, and it is everyones responsibility to educate each other.
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe they could put FOX News under R rated like they did with the movie 9/11 except the 9/11 movie was far more truthful and it pretty well all came to pass.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "Not everyone has had the benefit of a good education, and the main stream media, shame on them, know this. So they have puked lies, for so long.. I want to see the end of that."
  
  Just in case you missed this, I've copied and pasted it for you. My criticism is directed at the media, not the government. News should be factual, as so many people will reach conclusions based on the news that they watch. Therefore, ALL news outlets have a responsibility to present facts, not fiction, with the intention of influencing public opinion. Now, if Fox wish to continue to air complete fabrications, then they should not be allowed to describe their content as "Fact or News" It is neither. It should do what it says on the tin.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "..then they should not be allowed"
  
  As in, Federal law should stop it?
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  As in, there should be legislation to ensure that media organizations posing as news outlets have to adhere to a strict set of guidelines. ie. entertainment, commentary or opinion, should be presented exactly as that. Not fact.
  
  Federal law is not applicable in my country of origin.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  How do you see this working in practice?
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No answer? Anyone?
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, EmpressFelicity missed this.
  
  I think the Levenson inquiry, I know it's directed at the press, should offer up a way forward. Printing and broadcasting lies, which are purported to be truth means the offending party should be liable to prosecution or some kind of sanctions. I'm not saying that Fox should not be allowed to broadcast, just that they should not be allowed to present their versions as fact, if they are not. I know that in the UK (with regards the press) there is already legislation in place regarding this. So it could work, but would just need to be enforced properly.
  report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What media British media laws/regulatory bodies are we talking about? We already have strong anti-libel laws. Then there's the Press Complaints Commission and the Broadcasting Standards Commission, which have voluntary codes of practice. If someone complains to the PCC or the BSC about the treatment they've received, and their complaint is upheld, then this has to be reported by the media outlet concerned. But they can't be forced by the government not to publish/broadcast a particular story.*
  
  *http://www.britishcouncil.org/china-society-publications-media.pdf
  
  When I watch the news on TV or read news stories in the papers or on the Internet, a lot of the time there is no way I could actually prove whether the truth is being told or not - as an ordinary bod, I just don't have enough information. I think back to the Iraq war as an example - I knew in my gut that all this "45 minutes to launch weapons of mass destruction" was bollocks, but would it have made any difference if I'd been able to sue the newspapers? I simply didn't have all the facts at my disposal.
  
  When the government itself is squarely behind a particular policy (as it clearly was in the case of invading Iraq), then invoking the government as a defender of press standards is like asking your local urban fox to guard the chicken coop in your back garden.
  
  I find the idea of government sanctions against media outlets abhorrent. Part of living in a (relatively) free society is that I have to face up to the fact that sometimes, people will espouse opinions that I find offensive. Stopping them from being able to express these opinions might give me short-term satisfaction, but I know that it could return to bite me on the backside in the future.
  
  And another thing: there is a vast grey area where fact blends into opinion, where there is subtle (and not so subtle) bias but no out-and-out lying, and where omissions are made - there is stuff that happens that we get to hear about via forums like this one, but which strangely, goes unreported by the mainstream media. Do these omissions count as "untruths"? I personally think so, but good luck trying to prove that one in a court of law.
  report
0
Home Girlposted 12 years ago
The only time when I can distinguish Canadian program from US one is when they show weather. In Canada it's usually shown in C and in US in F. When I see that in Buffalo it is 67 degrees today, I know I am watching US channel. 67C would probably be too much. And I am not kidding, not at all, not me. I am a very serious person .
reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
They are going to restrict the net and would have by now if they could get away with it. The problem is, people are much easier to rule if they think they are free, rather than if they know they are not. Restricting the net is people knowing they are not.
reply report
1. 59
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I know they would love to censor the net. Whether they censor the net or not though, KYS, I think people in your nation and mine (for the most part) know that they are not free. I don't feel free, do you? I can't help but think that getting rid of the Murdoch Emp is a positive, though. I know, I know, they're up to something (without sounding too paranoid) but, I think the powers that be are as confused and uncertain about where the future is heading than the rest of us are, maybe?
  reply report
71
Reality Bytesposted 12 years ago
Fox News' Lies Keep Them Out of Canada

By Robert F. Kennedy Jr., Reader Supported News

01 March 11

s America's middle class battles for its survival on the Wisconsin barricades - against various Koch Oil surrogates and the corporate toadies at Fox News - fans of enlightenment, democracy and justice can take comfort from a significant victory north of the Wisconsin border. Fox News will not be moving into Canada after all! The reason: Canadian regulators announced last week they would reject efforts by Canada's right-wing Prime Minister, Stephen Harper, to repeal a law that forbids lying on broadcast news.

Canada's Radio Act requires that "a licenser may not broadcast ... any false or misleading news." The provision has kept Fox News and right-wing talk radio out of Canada and helped make Canada a model for >>>liberal democracy<<< and freedom

http://readersupportednews.org/opinion2 … -of-canada

make Canada a model for >>>liberal democracy<<< MOB RULES!!
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes all Government are corrupted in degrees, yes Canada is often a friendly dictatorship yet most people are happy enough with it. If you really want to talk about the worst mod ruling the people, Let talk about the 1% controlling much of the USA Government with Fox News being a part of that gang.
  reply report
  71
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  1% controls the world, the actual number is probably smaller then 1%, you do not think Canada is ruled by the same people?
  
  God Bless the queen and all that eh?
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have not sang God save the Queen since age 6, Quebec dose not except her as the Queen of Canada and we trade more with US than all of Europe combined.
  
  GW Bush announce Britain as America's Best friend , being war pal's and all because they love to blow stuff up!!!
  reply report
  71
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am not that knowledgeable in Canadian history or politics so I ask this with true sincerity. Is Canada not a British colony to this day? If not when did Canada declare her Independence?
  
  If Canada is independent of Britain why is the queens image still on the currency?
  reply report
  77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Australia, Canada, and New Zealand and many other countries are all part of Commonwelth and we each have our own contitution, the queen is printed on some of their money too. The queen does not do technically speaking or hold many powers, she doesn't use them or intervene in political matters
  reply report
  61
  SomewayOuttaHereposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  we really need to get rid of the GovGen (Canada)...waste of money to have someone formally represent the queen in Canada....unless of course Canada wants me to do it....i'd put a completely different spin on it...
  
  mornin' CP!
  reply report
  71
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Does Canada celebrate an "Independance day"? Free from the oversight of the British empire.
  reply report
  77
  Uninvited Writerposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes we do, it's called Canada Day.
  reply report
  61
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I think Canada would make a great hunting lease, the US should buy it and ask 1500 a rifle.
  reply report
  71
  Reality Bytesposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you, I will do my research from there.
  reply report
  59
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Although head of state, she actually has no (real) political power in the UK, either. I wish we could be rid of her.
  reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
Actually if I had any money I would feel pretty free. I know I could go anywhere at anytime if I am not on the no-fly list.
Without it there is not much freedom. But having no money was
my choice. What the powers that be are most concerned with is keeping the dollar as the world's reserve currency. No telling to
what degree of murder and mayhem they will engage to ensure this. See Iran as the current illustration. Missed you.
reply report
61
mel22posted 12 years ago
well since most people call it FAUX News anyways they could just label it as such and repost it along next to ET(Entertainment Tonight) so they can't be called out on reporting fake news as real news. It would just be for entertainment. THe debate should be which has more real news ,FOX or ET. I'll take FOX but wow it's close.FOX is much more entertaining though. ESpecially with Megan hosting.
reply report
56
WhoBeYouBeposted 12 years ago
Not every clown on youtube or the internet is telling you the truth either, people.

Please.
reply report
61
SomewayOuttaHereposted 12 years ago
oh no....what is it anyway?
reply report
60
Randy Godwinposted 12 years ago
Canada? Don't they have a girl on their money?
reply report
1. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not my girl, my girls I treat like queens
  reply report
0
RTalloniposted 12 years ago
The issue being "lies presented as news" and only FOX was banned?
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
If fox is banned in Canada ! Then they really should declare war on Msnbc , I find it amazing that the truth is such a contagion to everyone. Yes Fox news lies! They all do . But "let lose the dogs of P.C." when its a conservative and not a liberal thought and interpretation issue. Please !....
reply report
82
The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago
You will never see me celebrate censorship. I don't understand why some people trust the government to make decisions like this.
reply report
1. 61
  Repairguy47posted 12 years agoin reply to this
  +1
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
Honestly people ! I can be a bit on the conservi -side but why is it that P.C. always dictates the discription of integrety in media ? Right left ...I don't give a damn which side we're on ...Integrity , fairness and accuracy in fact , honesty in numbers , and civility in media is of a bygone era. We are not teens , lets eliminate the old two party rhetoric and strive for integrety!
Is free speech truely only acceptable on the left? If Canada needs to ban Fox or anything American .....then let it . I am as ashamed by how the world looks at America as I am disappointed by how so much of our resourses go to building a better world . There was also talk of arresting G.W. Bush .......I don't know where this idea of banning fox comes from but so be it!
reply report
60
knolyourselfposted 12 years ago
Propaganda is intentional lying. American propagandists are too dumb too know they are lying with almost every breath. Canada apparently has decided that Fox lies intentionally, as a knowing willing act or intentionally dispenses propaganda.
reply report
1. 87
  Jean Bakulaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  All of the TV news shows are crap. Fox spews lies and is loved by the conservative side, but has lost a few people for not letting the facts get in the way of their reporting, Glen Beck being one. CNN is bland, it does report what is happening, maybe with a slight liberal slant, very slight. MSNBC is considered radical left, but I love them, I think they are pretty much on the money, and the truth hurts. People won't admit to taking them seriously. And it is hard, because they poke fun at the stupid and irrational things politicians do and say. But at least they report the stuff. It is only older people who watch those news shows anyway, the minute you log on to your computer you are getting updates on whatever your areas of interest are. I don't think anyone should be censored, but admit there were times I was enraged by Fox.
  reply report
  67
  Ralph Deedsposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  MSNBC is much more factual than Fox. They tell one side only, but basically stick to the facts. Fox stretches the truth much more.
  reply report
  85
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I prefer NPR. You know it's fair because it ticks me off just as often as it doesn't.
  reply report
60
Druid Dudeposted 12 years ago
News became meaningless when they (the news people) started interjecting their own opinions. They aren't there to make the news, or to mold opinions. They are there to REPORT the news. I wish they would get back to that. And that includes Glenn Beck. He's not even a reporter.
reply report
0
jonnycomelatelyposted 12 years ago
Hollie, in support of what you have written about your parents, and their relatively low level of education:

I would think it is the educated, clever, intelligent people who use the radio and TV for their own gain. They are the ones who can manipulate the system, in order to convey lies, half-truths, advertising con-jobs. Also, it is the sly, cunning, crafty politicking, from educated people, which drives governments. So-called democratic governments are not immune from corruption.

I suppose what most people would like to see is a sense of duty, care, responsibility brought back into public life. You don't need to be highly educated in order to do that. You don't need to be a christian, or any other "..ist" in order to be a fair-minded person.

People in this Thread who are constantly trying to blame others for the problems need to sort out their own inner objectives and intentions. Start "being the change that you want to be."

IMHO !
reply report
1. 59
  Hollie Thomasposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Hi Jonnycomelately,
  
  My parents believed (wrongly) that governements and the media told the truth because that is what they expected from people in power, they actually believed that those who held positions of high office and the virtue of integrity were synonymous. It was also unthinkable for them to conceive that they were being lied to. Because, that is not how they would have behaved!!
  
  The liars and cheats are the ones to blame, you're right to question the inner objectives and intentions of those who would blame honest, decent people for the misdeeds of those holding the reins of power.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
NPR, Fox, Nbc, or BBC, there are no unbiased news outlets out there . Just the usual "dime novel" mentality of media, and the gullibility of the masses.
Drink up folks theres coolaid for all!
reply report
82
The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago
The more I think about it the more disturbed I feel. When Socialists shut down right-wingers and declare themselves judge, jury and executioners then we are in danger as citizens. I would say the same thing if a communist radio station were shut down. This is wrong and I feel supporting this action is very misguided.

Political correctness came from the left and censorship is the final solution to ending dissent.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Gasp! A republican from Texas taking up for Fox News? Whodathunkit!
  reply report
  82
  The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's a little deeper than that... censurship... all you have are snide remarks. You are naive to believe in government power....
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I am naive? Thank you for your opinion. I will respect it if you didn't vote for Palin to be VP. Otherwise, I will give it the consideration it deserves.
  reply report
  85
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What's the alternative ? Local corruption, discrimination.. Libertarian lunacy.
  reply report
  85
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What power should we believe in, then?
  
  Are you an anarchist? Nobody should put any constraints on you?
  reply report
  82
  The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  What I notice about you far left-wing types is your need to live on the edge in your arguments. I'm not an anarchist at all. Why would you even think that? Is it because you are stunned that someone could disagree with you so the only answer is that I am a far-right fringe thinker?
  
  We need government regulation in many areas. But a left-wing government censoring a right-wing media outlet just doesn't sit well with me. You guys are naive and yes I'm saying it again. You are trusting in absolute power to stifle commentary. Remember freedom of the press? Well yes the press is made up of humans and yes they have every flaw that you and I possess but you cannot arbitrarily decide to shut down the media. They have to stand on their own. If you wish a country like that then I invite you to check out Venezuela....
  
  In the end Fox has not stopped the Liberal agenda... we have a black president... gay rights are almost codified.... there is much change that has occured. People like Keith Olbermann are alive and well. There is plenty of counter-point. But don't sit here and throw anarchy at me or child pornography like Randy does. It's ridiculous. You guys are obviously hard-core left-wingers and you wish the government could come in and stop everything to which you object. Well I'm sorry... you're just wrong....
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "far-right fringe thinker"? That's an oxymoron, ya know!
  reply report
  82
  The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Ha ha... you so funny... ok... right-winger... how's that? And If you think I agree with fundamentalism you've got the wrong guy... I've been put down by them too....
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Now we're getting somewhere! Perhaps if we let YOU decide what is censored or not we would be on the right path!
  reply report
  58
  MelissaBarrettposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Obviously
  reply report
  85
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I already know you are a right winger. I'm just trying to plumb the murky depths of your thinking.
  
  OK, not an anarchist. So government has its place. Explain to me how a crippled federal government will improve your little life?
  reply report
  82
  The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You'd be wrong. If you read anything I put up you'd know it but you've made up your mind so you're not the free thinker that you believe you are....
  
  Who is more likely to push for censorship: a right-winger or a left-winger? Who is pushing for it now? Who is not?
  
  You just think politically and don't like dissent so you're fine with government power. But you think that makes me a right-winger but in fact it makes me balanced. But you are so far left that the middle looks like the right to you....
  reply report
  85
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, I know how y'all hate leeberalls and how "balanced" you think you are.
  
  Can't answer the question, can you?
  
  How will a crippled federal government improve your little life?
  reply report
  82
  The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You need to understand who you are speaking to before you resort to snide remarks. I have posted a series of anti-racism poems on my FB page for MLK. You on the other hand are advocating censorship. You don't even understand what is happening in your own mind.
  
  I would post the links but Mom (Randy) wouldn't like it because he's such a stickler for rules....
  reply report
  75
  stclairjackposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  i will answer the question for TSP,...
  
  "how will cripled government help our little lives?"
  
  its cripled already,... hows it been going lately?
  reply report
  85
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Still can't answer the question, can you?
  reply report
  82
  The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "How will a crippled government help your little lives?"
  
  What kind of question is that? It is so incredibly open-ended you must think I have all day to spend on you. But you will declare victory. I know your type.
  reply report
  75
  stclairjackposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  i think the point you are tying to make is that fux news is by NO MEANS fair and balanced as they claim...... you'll get NO arguement from me on that,... fix news is about as fair and balanced as a fat kid on one side of the teeter-totter,.... you cant even get the other kid on the other end,...
  
  that said,.... banning them may not be the answer,.... the best deffense against fix news is fux news,..... for those of us with a mind and a back bone,.... fix news is a poster child for everything we shoud be suspect of.
  
  for those who do not have such judgment,.... the ban will only strengthen thier conspiracy theory fueled desire to watch it anyway,...
  
  realy,... in the information age, censorship does not work,..... if you ban a rock-n-roll album,.... kids will go to great lengths to get it.
  
  by banning fux news, you've only given them the talking points they work best from, and more fuel to pour onto the roaring fire of the right wing tea bagging frenzy.
  
  i'm not sure "way to go canada" is the best reponse.
  
  does that better answer you query?
  
  or do you need a disertation on the value of a free press,..... even if that press be skewed and rediculous.
  reply report
  0
  EmpressFelicityposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think that using logic will help, somehow. Other people have tried it on this thread, but the response always seems to be along the lines of "Oh, but the ends justify the means!"
  
  A slogan used by many a villain and dictator throughout history.
  reply report
  67
  innersmiffposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  "How will a crippled government help your little lives?"
  
  I don't want the government to help me with anything thanks, it's done a pretty poor job so far.
  
  On the other hand, how has an over-reaching government helped anybody's lives in the past?
  
  The purpose of government is not to provide everything a human being would ever need. The demands of humans are infinite, and the only way a government can even attempt to match that is to legally plunder from everybody.
  report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Post what you please, Sweetie! Merely trying to save you a little grief! And of course, those who might actually read your poems!
  reply report
74
Eaglekiwiposted 12 years ago
Fox isnt tolerated in many places as far as a credible news channel.
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
I don't know where you are from but Fox is probably the most watched news in America, do they sway the news ,yes . But to condemn fox news for telling truths that you dont like or even agree with is immature! I am not surprised that alot of liberals want to persuade us that everyone thinks like they do , thats the cool aid factor -P.C. Go to Canada if you want they will welcome the left jabber ,I'm sure ! If not ...you can still call yourselves American.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Thank you for allowing us this option. We would have never thought of such a brilliant solution for dealing with propaganda. I bet YOU never fell for Palin's little spiels! Tell us more oh enlightened one!
  reply report
  0
  ahorsebackposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Tell you more ? The brilliance in censurship is for only your P.C. train of thought Randy! I can enlighten you not , in such a closure of the mind!
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Your thoughts on child pornography being freely dispensed to anyone wishing to see it? Or is censure okay in this instance? This ought to be good!
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  You are correct, you can enlighten me not. You must first be enlightened yourself before attempting to do so to others. And your thoughts on censoring child porn? Nastiness is nastiness whether it's child porn or news porn. Both have ill effects on susceptible people. Do you approve of Fox News?
  reply report
2. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Another set of bad new dodgers to Canada, NO Thank there is enough American running the boarder for our jobs now
  reply report
82
The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago
You're problem is that you assume a contrary opinion to your own is a sign of a Republican. I defy you to read some of my hubs and conclude that I am a Republican. If you agree with government censorship then I stand by my comment to you. I am not here to debate who lies and who doesn't because I know how Fox is... I know how Palin is... she is a joke and I have no problem stating that fact (or opinion) here and now.... I would think a true defender of freedom would be cautious in their approval of governement discretion (i.e. people who are being criticized by the people they deem to be liars) over words....
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Personally, I'm glad government censures child pornography as much as possible. I'm sorry if you feel differently. Where does one draw the line?
  reply report
  82
  The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Who said I feel differently. Part of the mix in child pornography are the children themselves. That is the issue there. Equating censorship of child pornography with censorship of a news outlet is not even close.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Many who watch Faux News are as childish as they come. They have to be to believe the network is trustworthy. An adult Santa Claus show!
  reply report
  82
  The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't disagree with you about people who fall for the likes of Palin's rhetoric. But children are a different matter. It is not the same. Why do they have statutory rape laws even in a "consensual" situation? It's because society has deeped that human beings under 18 are not sophisticated enough to protect themselves. We are talking about adults versus children. It's not the same and you can't work your way around it.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not trying to work my around anything, SuPo. A childish mind is a childish mind, no matter the age of the owner. When these type minds are exposed to garbage touted as delicacies it is a recipe for disaster. Ergo electing a Texas moron who should be charged with criminal activity for the needless death, destruction, and cost to out treasury. Nuff sed!
  reply report
  82
  The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'l never agree that child pornography is a valid comparison.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
Suburban Poet , I think its only those who suck up to the political correctness in such a ban that would stifle free speech! Intellectual liberal wannabees perhaps are they ?
reply report
82
The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago
I didn't join Hubpages to engage in political arguments (as you can see if you read my profile). But my final word on this is that the governement is made up of human beings that possess virtually unaccountable power. If you give them the power to make discretionary decisions concerning censorship then you have given your enemies the same power because one day they will be in power and you will regret the discretion that you handed to them when your friends were in power. This works both ways....
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Respond to my post about pornography if you wish to back your previous words, SuPo.
  reply report
82
The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago
I don't have to be hacked to bits i order to be proven wrong. Nothing is simple. But government power is scary. You appear to believe in it to a certain degree as do I. We may part ways at various points but when the Left uses raw power to silence the Right then it becomes dangerous. And vice-versa....
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  And your view on child pornography? I know you don't relish having to say you think it should be censored, but you put yourself in this position with your previous posts berating censorship. Don't run away without addressing my question if you are true to your words.
  reply report
2. 85
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, right: the Right is so silenced!
  
  The silence comes from people waking up to realize how foolish they have been. If Canada did ban Fox, they'd be right to do so,
  reply report
82
The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago
Child pornograpy is wrong. Period. That is something an adult can easily distinguish between political commentary. If you think that going to an extreme and assuming you defeated the censorship argument then you are sadly mistaken. You're not even close.
reply report
1. 85
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  But lying and inciting people to violence or even just to influence their votes is fine? Just so long as you pretend that it is news?
  reply report
2. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  kids can go to the their computer :chick; on anything they want to KNOW about sex. As a kid I found naked pictures in my Dad's dresser. What's worst than two people making love, is two people killing each other, than talking about it, like on Fox News,
  reply report
82
The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago
You assume that those in power are operating in good faith when they declare something to be a lie and something to be inciting a riot.

Why don't you go ahead and ban religion while you're at it.... it's a lie right?
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Of course it isn't a lie! Illiterate goat herders should be the role models for today's world. Who needs science when anonymous authors of contradictory myths are there for the fulfillment of those who have questions they cannot accept from knowledgeable scholars. Duh!
  reply report
  82
  The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Then ban it...
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I have.
  reply report
2. 85
  Pcunixposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  We have separation of church and state - thats all the banning we need.
  
  Fox News misinforms and influences politics through its lies. The mistake we made was allowing one man to have so much media power.
  reply report
82
The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago
I disagree and that's it... you guy's will take it to the micro level. I understand your need to be right. But "two people making love" is not child pornography. You put a red-herring out there. This type of political argument is typical because people are unable to remain on point. Have a great day. I'm sure you guys are good people and I understand your feelings about Fox... I don't watch it anyway.. I don't watch any news shows....

If you question my motives then read this hub that I posted sometime back:

<link snipped - no promotional links>
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I don't like amateur poetry that much and I've learned enough about your reasoning abilities by conversing with you here. The fact that you refused to man up on the censorship thing tells me the depth of your sincerity. Good luck to you!
  
  PS---By the way, self promotion is frowned upon here for a reason and is why posting a link to your...poem..is against the TOS. I know....censorship again!
  reply report
2. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Who get child pornography channels? The Pope
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why not? Who can say who sees what? Who has the knowledge to decide?
  reply report
65
jcmayer777posted 12 years ago
I am not big on banning choices. I have my own ban on news for dumb FOX, but I think people should be able to watch it if they choose.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  The same for anything else then.
  reply report
  82
  The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Not child pornography...
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  That's censorship.....someone said that's a bad thing.
  reply report
  82
  The Suburban Poetposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Adult content... you are playing dumb. Child pornography is a crime and is an abomination. I can't believe that is all you have as a counter-point.... surely you have more... tell me you have more....
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I don't think you're playing SuPo. Censorship does indeed have a place in our society, otherwise everything would be allowed everywhere. Sure, only the pedophiles would like child porn to be allowed. The same can be said for many harmful things.
  
  Fox News aided the criminal Bush in his quest to start a war with Iraq by convincing the gullible to vote for him. How many trillions of dollars and young people's lives were spent on what we have there now. I had rather still be arguing with Saddam now and have all of that back. I'm also sure the hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis would feel the same. IF THEY WEREN'T DEAD!
  
  News porn!
  reply report
  76
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I thought that it was a pretty good point.
  
  What is and isn't a crime should be based upon moral or ethical understandings - and surely child pornography and statutory rape are crimes in the USA because everyone can see that someone is being taken advantage of in the extreme.
  
  No, lying and calling it "news" is not something on the same level as to rape a child.....but when you lie and call it news, and millions of persons believe the lies are truth.....it's still taking advantage of someone, and so, it's comparable to child pornography.
  
  Defending persons from abuse isn't censorship.
  reply report
82
The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago
So much power? There are media outlets everywhere. There is more information available than ever. It's not even close..... I was born in 1958... we had three channels and no internet. We had the World Book Encyclopedia.... now the range of information is far diverse. I understand the need to regulate against monopoly's (anti-trust laws) but that is not the problem here... Fox is on one channel. That's it... Yet you want that channel to be deleted....
reply report
82
The Suburban Poetposted 12 years ago
That's alright Randy... you have a good day...
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  CENSORED!
  reply report
78
psycheskinnerposted 12 years ago
All I see that that almost no one else here actually read the story to the end.
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps that may be true for some, but the subject of censorship is important despite the article being factual or not.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
Okay everyone , just so you are all P.C. correct , Lets build a big bon- fire with only conservative news broadcasters , those there religious zealots can burn too , and hey lets throw in a few babies. All to protect.....what ....you who liberally opine?.....
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Why burn the babies after we've already saved them from hypocrisy?
  reply report
2. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  I'll bring the marshmallow and tea
  
  No, I just do not like the new conservative, yet a true conservative like Ron Paul would be just right for America, …...I wish
  reply report
3. 76
  Wesman Todd Shawposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  It's not about that.
  
  I've got a ton of respect for persons like PcUnix and Randy the Snake - I like them both too much to sour my time on this website by getting into religious discussions with either.
  
  The late Ernest Shubb....same thing.
  
  While "most" of the mass media might be considered "liberal"...that's beside the point.
  
  Fox panders to the lowest common denominator, and deliberately spreads false information proclaimed as fact.
  
  Conservative views on anything are fine - but there's no reasoning with someone or something that deliberately and knowingly spreads lies as if they were facts. I'd say that it's pretty impossible to have a productive conversation or to reach a productive conclusion when you're conversing with or getting your current events from a blatant and purposeful liar.
  
  Hey, if MSNBC gets busted deliberately spreading falsehoods as if they were truth - then makes that a part of their paradigm, then they should certainly be banned too.
  
  Censorship is not the issue. Stating things as though they are facts while knowing that they are not facts, but lies - is entirely the issue.
  reply report
  60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well said, Wesman. Any network, no matter the political affiliation, should have certain standards they have to follow.
  reply report
79
Mr. Happyposted 12 years ago
How about we leave the babies out? lol Just so there will be some inhabitants left when we're all done.
reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
No seriously guys , one of those babies might grow up to be a conservative, or Oh my No , believe in a god!.....Maybe even your child!
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There have always been dumb children.
  reply report
0
ahorsebackposted 12 years ago
Tell me something .....Do atheists really ever think ahead more than a few minutes at a time. ? Lets see ....
"Now son , I told you to be a liberal and there you go , watching fox news again, I mean , what am I going to do with you?".......:-}
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  No they don't, but then, fundies are always a half hour behind them anyway.
  reply report
2. 77
  Castlepalomaposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Do they talk about Atheist on Fox, must of missed the quick clips.
  reply report
79
Mr. Happyposted 12 years ago
I disagree with the dumb children comment and I will refrain from saying who's really the dumb one ...
reply report
1. 60
  Randy Godwinposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  There have always been dumb adults who were once dumb children.
  reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

12 Next

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

FOX Banned In Canada

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

FOX Banned In Canada

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies