next target of the left will be talk radio

[Mustang]

everything right or republican or right or republican related the left is determined to divide and conquer.
Its only natural the next target will be talk radio. Give it time

Roger?s Rules » The Next Target of Leftists: Talk Radio

It sure doesn't take much for conservatives to start running scared, does it? At least it makes it easier to understand their love of guns. They're ALWAYS scared; they just hide it with a lot of bluster.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Because it curbs free speech .

Bzzt. I'm sorry, the correct answer is exactly the opposite; it required free speech. Thanks for playing. But feel free to demonstrate your absurdity instead of plopping turds of empty ipse dixit.

JaketheFake back defending liberal scum because it is liberal scum.

Perfect example of Post 69. Thanks. Still waiting on answer to post 37. Or Seawytch's same question in post 28. The silence is eloquent.
Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.....

So you dont like the truth and want to keep a lie going.....You are a sad little fascist.

The truth do not like the far right reactionary fascists like Thanatos and Gone Bezerk's lies, which have been competently rebutted, yet the fascist assholes come back with the Big Lie. That is, in part, why Romney lost, because of fascist asshole lying. America sees right through them.

 

[Freemason9]

The good thing about shows like the Sean Hannity Republican Show on radio is that it is an easy way for anti-Republicans to keep track of their strategy and talking points. He seems to be the source of that party's media strategy.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Talk radio is fine. Hate radio is not fine.

Of course, YOU get to define 'hate'...

 

[NYcarbineer]

Nobody on the left should waste time caring about rightwing talk radio. It's doing more harm than good to the Republican Party...

...let it flourish.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Talk Radio is one of the reasons the Democrats kept the Presidency and increased its seats in the Senate and picked up seats in the House.

 

[GuyPinestra]

Talk Radio is one of the reasons the Democrats kept the Presidency and increased its seats in the Senate and picked up seats in the House.

So let's just BAN it, right?

You fucking Progressives are all the same...

 

[Politico]

You paranoid loons have been saying the same thing since Clinton got elected. No one has come after anything yet.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Talk radio is fine. Hate radio is not fine.

No one is putting "Common Dreams" on the radio, Shitting Bull....

 

[Uncensored2008]

I love fox and its Saudi owned criteria.

Ohhh, you can lie AND you're a leftist.

How unique...

 

[Mustang]

Talk Radio is one of the reasons the Democrats kept the Presidency and increased its seats in the Senate and picked up seats in the House.

I think it must have shaken up more than a few of those 3 hour a day talk radio hosts when they came to realize that their broadcasts didn't at least help to push their candidate over the finish line in the lead.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The radio airwaves, unlike television, is finite. Only X number of channels.

Don't bring back the fairness doctrine, bring back the Telecom Act that prohibited companies from owning more than 40 stations.

Yeah, cuz it's 1909....


iHeartRadio | Real & Custom Radio Stations - Listen Free Online

Get a clue.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Okay. I can agree with that. Also prohitbiting companies from owning more that one broadcast station in any give market.

If only you thugs could do something about the internet, you might be able to get back to the Edward Murrow days, where ONLY party approved news made it on the airwaves...


ABC, NBC and CBS are simply divisions of the democratic party. Not only does the news slant to the party opinion, but entertainment and talk is 100% behind the party. Even Fox runs hard left shows (Bones and Family Guy are classic examples.) News is so slanted it's a running joke. MSNBC and Comedy Central are where the extremists go for news and opinions. But even if one is not a complete whackadoodle leftist, CNN and the alphabets will give only news that promotes the party.

Only Fox Cable News, not even Fox broadcast, offers any sort of alternative to the managed news that the party pumps out on it's media.

So whine away about conservative talk shows, you leftists have EVERYTHING else, including virtually all Hollywood movies. IF politics are touched on, radical left politics will be pushed.

 

[Pogo]

You dont listen to talk radio.....How can I tell you ask? Cause your statement is complete bullshit.

Why else are they so afraid of the old Fairness Doctrine rule that required some form(not equal time of course) of rebuttal on controversial issues?

Showing both sides of an issue violates free speech of course.

You have to use your Doublethink cap. I believe this one falls under "Ignorance is Strength". Ignore the reality and claim the reverse. Say it over and over until you actually believe it. Click your shoes together three times and chant: "There's no place like the Bubble... There's no place like the Bubble...'

 

[Pogo]

Because it curbs free speech .

No it doesn't. In fact, it is the RW's Talk Show format that is curbing Free Speech according to the Supreme Court.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

Terrible ruling by the court but with the massive amount of liberal interpretations of the constitution during that era of the court it is not surprising.

"Terrible ruling"? Red Lion was about libel. The broadcast had smeared a book author who was not present; the author demanded airtime to respond, the station refused, and SCOTUS found in favor of the aggrieved author.

So you're pro-libel then? I can put up a transmitter and say "Bilko eats babies" and there's not a damn thing you can do about it? OK then, have it your way.

"It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.

B.

Rather than confer frequency monopolies on a relatively small number of licensees, in a Nation of 200,000,000, the Government could surely have decreed that each frequency should be shared among all or some of those who wish to use it, each being assigned a portion of the broadcast day or the broadcast week. The ruling and regulations at issue here do not go quite so far. They assert that under specified circumstances, a licensee must offer to make available a reasonable amount of broadcast time to those who have a view different from that which has already been expressed on his station. The expression of a political endorsement, or of a personal attack while dealing with a controversial public issue, simply triggers this time sharing. As we have said, the First Amendment confers no right on licensees to prevent others from broadcasting on "their" frequencies and no right to an unconditional monopoly of a scarce resource which the Government has denied others the right to use....

Nor can we say that it is inconsistent with the First Amendment goal of producing an informed public capable of conducting its own affairs to require a broadcaster to permit answers to personal attacks occurring in the course of discussing controversial issues, or to require that the political opponents of those endorsed by the station be given a chance to communicate with the public. Otherwise, station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their own views on public issues, people and candidates, and to permit on the air only those with whom they agreed. There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all. "Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests."[/I] -- Justice Byron White writing for SCOTUS, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969 (unanimous) (emphasis added)

Related:
"It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee." Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)

 

[Pogo]

Okay. I can agree with that. Also prohitbiting companies from owning more that one broadcast station in any give market.

If only you thugs could do something about the internet, you might be able to get back to the Edward Murrow days, where ONLY party approved news made it on the airwaves...

This is where it would have paid to read the thread. I noted waaaaay back there (first post) that when Edward R. Murrow broadcast his famous "A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy", the Wisconsin Senator was given air time to respond under the Fairness Doctrine, and got the entire show three weeks later. You would also have read that McCarthy himself was a key figure in establishing the Fairness Doctrine in the first place.

So much for the "approved news"...

 

[JakeStarkey]

The ultra radical fascist thugs like Uncensored believe in only "fairness" for their warped view of America.

 

[Gadawg73]

Showing both sides of an issue violates free speech of course.

It doesn't.
But the Fairness Doctrine is based on the premise of "this scarce resource" when talking about broadcast media.
And that is dinosaur speak in the courts. Media is not scarce anymore. Far more people go on the internet than listen to a talk radio show.
The internet allows anyone and everyone to give their side of any issue at any time they want to.

The radio airwaves, unlike television, is finite. Only X number of channels.

Don't bring back the fairness doctrine, bring back the Telecom Act that prohibited companies from owning more than 40 stations.

Where in the Fairness Doctrine ruling does it narrow it's spectrum of media to radio airwaves?
Both Acts you quote are dinosaurs and over 50 years old.
Surely you do not want current information age law to hold precedent that is outdated not only in technology but in every other way also.
The Fairness Doctrine in today's information age is a lie and has no merit whatsoever.
I am open to any and all current case law to prove otherwise.

 

[Gadawg73]

No it doesn't. In fact, it is the RW's Talk Show format that is curbing Free Speech according to the Supreme Court.

A license permits broadcasting, but the licensee has no constitutional right to be the one who holds the license or to monopolize a...frequency to the exclusion of his fellow citizens. There is nothing in the First Amendment which prevents the Government from requiring a licensee to share his frequency with others.... It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount.

— U.S. Supreme Court, upholding the constitutionality of the Fairness Doctrine in Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 1969.

Terrible ruling by the court but with the massive amount of liberal interpretations of the constitution during that era of the court it is not surprising.

"Terrible ruling"? Red Lion was about libel. The broadcast had smeared a book author who was not present; the author demanded airtime to respond, the station refused, and SCOTUS found in favor of the aggrieved author.

So you're pro-libel then? I can put up a transmitter and say "Bilko eats babies" and there's not a damn thing you can do about it? OK then, have it your way.

"It is the right of the viewers and listeners, not the right of the broadcasters, which is paramount. It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee. It is the right of the public to receive suitable access to social, political, esthetic, moral, and other ideas and experiences which is crucial here. That right may not constitutionally be abridged either by Congress or by the FCC.

B.

Rather than confer frequency monopolies on a relatively small number of licensees, in a Nation of 200,000,000, the Government could surely have decreed that each frequency should be shared among all or some of those who wish to use it, each being assigned a portion of the broadcast day or the broadcast week. The ruling and regulations at issue here do not go quite so far. They assert that under specified circumstances, a licensee must offer to make available a reasonable amount of broadcast time to those who have a view different from that which has already been expressed on his station. The expression of a political endorsement, or of a personal attack while dealing with a controversial public issue, simply triggers this time sharing. As we have said, the First Amendment confers no right on licensees to prevent others from broadcasting on "their" frequencies and no right to an unconditional monopoly of a scarce resource which the Government has denied others the right to use....

Nor can we say that it is inconsistent with the First Amendment goal of producing an informed public capable of conducting its own affairs to require a broadcaster to permit answers to personal attacks occurring in the course of discussing controversial issues, or to require that the political opponents of those endorsed by the station be given a chance to communicate with the public. Otherwise, station owners and a few networks would have unfettered power to make time available only to the highest bidders, to communicate only their own views on public issues, people and candidates, and to permit on the air only those with whom they agreed. There is no sanctuary in the First Amendment for unlimited private censorship operating in a medium not open to all. "Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests."[/I] -- Justice Byron White writing for SCOTUS, Red Lion v. FCC, 1969 (unanimous) (emphasis added)

Related:
"It is the purpose of the First Amendment to preserve an uninhibited market-place of ideas in which truth will ultimately prevail, rather than to countenance monopolization of that market, whether it be by the Government itself or a private licensee." Associated Press v. United States, 326 U.S. 1, 20 (1945); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 270 (1964); Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)

How is your ice cream with your cherry picked argument?

 

[Gadawg73]

Okay. I can agree with that. Also prohitbiting companies from owning more that one broadcast station in any give market.

If only you thugs could do something about the internet, you might be able to get back to the Edward Murrow days, where ONLY party approved news made it on the airwaves...

This is where it would have paid to read the thread. I noted waaaaay back there (first post) that when Edward R. Murrow broadcast his famous "A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy", the Wisconsin Senator was given air time to respond under the Fairness Doctrine, and got the entire show three weeks later. You would also have read that McCarthy himself was a key figure in establishing the Fairness Doctrine in the first place.

So much for the "approved news"...

How much did the sponsors pay when Tailgunner got "the entire show?"
WHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHHHHH
Look to your left.........................