Rush Limbaugh, Get Off Welfare!

[BaronVonBigmeat]

The trouble with this sort of thinking is it assumes the airwaves have no consequences for a nation. If hatred is allowed and not countered we soon lose the very freedoms we support, we allow the hate mongers and others to control the thoughts of the impressionable Timothy McVeighs.

SPLCenter.org: Hate group numbers continue increase
>

Would you advocate giving the government similar control of print media then? How about websites? Naughty thoughts can be spread by other means than just the airwaves.

Also, the federal government has been much more dangerous to this country than hate groups, so I'm not sure why you'd advocate giving them more power.

edit: the southern poverty law center is a joke, I've even met lots of liberals who thought so

 

[Charles_Main]

Damn, you are being sensitive today. Can't you take a joke?

No the wife is on the rag, and I need some!!

 

[midcan5]

Would you advocate giving the government similar control of print media then? How about websites? Naughty thoughts can be spread by other means than just the airwaves.

I don't want the government to have control over media at all, the point is speech is regulated and when it crosses certain boundaries that needs to be made clear. The fairness doctrine made an attempt at that, it would be interesting if we could carry on a civil discussion about these topics on air as well as in print. Look at how hard the NYT tries to be fair today. We do that here sometimes, sometimes!

 

[stivex]

I don't want the government to have control over media at all, the point is speech is regulated and when it crosses certain boundaries that needs to be made clear.

Huh? Can you say oxymoron?

Speech should not be regulated except by individuals that want to regulate their speech for a certain reason (be nice, try not to offend by being courteous, etc). Example the old adage of "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all." This does not mean we legally have to.

Speech is free. To take away some of what you can and cannot say, is to limit the scope of the freedom (of speech) altogether.

Actions are where we are not free. you can run around saying destroy the government all you want (for example), but if you take action to try and do so, you have crossed the line. Don't confuse action and speech. Speech is rhetoric. Action is not. We do not have freedom of action.

 

[Charles_Main]

I don't want the government to have control over media at all, the point is speech is regulated and when it crosses certain boundaries that needs to be made clear. The fairness doctrine made an attempt at that, it would be interesting if we could carry on a civil discussion about these topics on air as well as in print. Look at how hard the NYT tries to be fair today. We do that here sometimes, sometimes!

IN practice the fairness doctrine only acted to thwart speech. If it is brought back it would only do the same. Radio stations around the country would simply drop political programing, instead of having to give equal time to both sides regardless of their ability to get ratings. After all they are in the business of making money, not providing a forum for Both sides regardless of ratings.

 

[editec]

They auction them off, I believe. I couldn't find a good link for you but here's one about one particular auction.

Minimum bid hit in FCC auction, triggering open access | Tech news blog - CNET News.com

Yes, this is for that bandwidth in telphonics.

But if my hazy memory serves me, for years and years, radio, and even TV bandwidth was regulated, but basically given away.

Perhaps at the onset of radio that made sense, but I think that casual corporate welfare carried on even into the 1950's.

Perhaps if I have time I'll try to see how right or wrong I am about the history of this issue.