Here it comes... "Fairness Doctrine" for the Internet...

[Yurt]

because every time I ask a con this they cant do it.



Fairness Doctrine

liar...i've answered you but you don't like it

tell me, how would the fairness doctrine apply to the internet? under what basis of the doctrine and is there any basis in the doctrine that would disqualify the internet?

no surprise truthy ran from this....

she hasn't a clue about the doctrine and why it is no longer viable or constitutional...

 

[Immanuel]

fairness doctrine: West's Encyclopedia of American Law (Full Article) from Answers.com

The doctrine that imposes affirmative responsibilities on a broadcaster to provide coverage of issues of public importance that is adequate and fairly reflects differing viewpoints. In fulfilling its fairness doctrine obligations, a broadcaster must provide free time for the presentation of opposing views if a paid sponsor is unavailable and must initiate programming on public issues if no one else seeks to do so.



The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was (in the Commission's view) honest, equitable and balanced.

Why on Earth do you believe that a broadcaster should have to give away valuable airtime free of charge to present opposing points of view? There is no doctrine of fairness in that!

Just like your husband works to provide food for your family, the broadcaster works to provide food for his and now you are asking that he give up valuable airtime that would provide income for his company which filters down to food on the tables of his family and the families of his employees and creditors. The entire idea is so UnAmerican that I can not believe we are even discussing it!

Immie

 

[KMAN]

Heres how it goes .

You have present all sides of an issue and not just one side.

If you dont present all sides then someone can demand time on your show to present their side of the issue.

Most shows would be just fine except Fox.

Why do you think FOX kicks every other cable news network's ass EVERY NIGHT. It's not once in a while... IT'S EVERY NIGHT....

A) The US has many more right wing wackos than left wing wackos.
B) The majority of the country has figured out the the other cable and network news programs are going to kiss Obama's ass everynight instead of asking him real questions.

Tough one there...

 

[Steerpike]

You like oversimplifying a restriction on free speech. The internet is the last bastion of free speech, and to take that away is to lead to .. well ... pick a bad form of government. Look it over more, there's even more to it than that, it infringes on private messages even. Anyone remember the last time that happened? A joke about anthrax almost got someone put to death because of an automated detection algorithm in an email server ... seriously! It's bad, it's wrong, and if he pushes this then **** the Democrats, I am going full blown Republican.

Some people like government censorship or imposition of mandates regarding speech, so long as they perceive it will benefit their party. That's what you get when you have mindless partisans opining on such matters, rather than principled people who would be opposed to such regulation regardless of which party they belonged to.

 

[007]

You like oversimplifying a restriction on free speech. The internet is the last bastion of free speech, and to take that away is to lead to .. well ... pick a bad form of government. Look it over more, there's even more to it than that, it infringes on private messages even. Anyone remember the last time that happened? A joke about anthrax almost got someone put to death because of an automated detection algorithm in an email server ... seriously! It's bad, it's wrong, and if he pushes this then **** the Democrats, I am going full blown Republican.

Some people like government censorship or imposition of mandates regarding speech, so long as they perceive it will benefit their party. That's what you get when you have mindless partisans opining on such matters, rather than principled people who would be opposed to such regulation regardless of which party they belonged to.

I think if this "unfair doctrine" had more of a chance of passing, there would be more of an uproar about it. Frankly, I don't think it has a chance in hell of passing... even the new renamed version.

 

[Steerpike]

I think if this "unfair doctrine" had more of a chance of passing, there would be more of an uproar about it. Frankly, I don't think it has a chance in hell of passing... even the new renamed version.

If it does pass it ought to be held unconstitutional. Previously, the Supreme Court upheld it specifically because of the limited channels of communication. If there was a limited amount of space for information to be provided, and not many places to find alternative points of view, then the rationale becomes stronger.

We're so awash in information of various points of view these days that the original rationale used by the Supreme Court doesn't apply any more, and since that was the basis for upholding I think there's a good chance the courts looking at it now would say it was unconstitutional.

After all, it is not only a prior restrain on speech, but a prior restraint on Political speech. That gets just about the toughest scrutiny of anything the government can do, and courts are only supposed to allow such things if they are 'necessary.' In this case, the necessity isn't there any longer because we have so many information sources available to us.

 

[KittenKoder]

As I said, if it passes then I will go outlaw on their asses in a heartbeat. If I have a website that I pay hosting and domain fees for no one, I mean NO ONE will tell me what I can or cannot publish on it.

 

[007]

I think if this "unfair doctrine" had more of a chance of passing, there would be more of an uproar about it. Frankly, I don't think it has a chance in hell of passing... even the new renamed version.

If it does pass it ought to be held unconstitutional. Previously, the Supreme Court upheld it specifically because of the limited channels of communication. If there was a limited amount of space for information to be provided, and not many places to find alternative points of view, then the rationale becomes stronger.

We're so awash in information of various points of view these days that the original rationale used by the Supreme Court doesn't apply any more, and since that was the basis for upholding I think there's a good chance the courts looking at it now would say it was unconstitutional.

After all, it is not only a prior restrain on speech, but a prior restraint on Political speech. That gets just about the toughest scrutiny of anything the government can do, and courts are only supposed to allow such things if they are 'necessary.' In this case, the necessity isn't there any longer because we have so many information sources available to us.

When I get a day off like today, I listen to KKOH out of Reno streaming off their website so I can catch Rush. No more than I started it streaming today but there was an add for a anti fairness doctrine rally today being held at the Silver Legacy, downtown Reno. Glad to see people taking action, but I don't see anybody else making it an issue. I can't hardly believe talk radio or Fox News or ANY internet entity would just let this pass by and not have taken notice. Really, I just don't think this thing has much of a chance at all of passing.

If it did, I'm with KK... I'd go absolutely ape shit, demonstrating in the streets, ain't gonna take it anymore, PISSED OFF! That would be the point where I think I'd believe my America was truly gone, and time to take action.

 

[Father Time]

We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the e-mail you're about to send is angry and caution you, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. do you really and truly want to send it?'" they wrote. "(Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful e-mail message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, 'warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in 24 hours.' With the stronger version, you might be able to bypass the delay with some work (by inputting, say, your Social Security number and your grandfather’s birth date, or maybe by solving some irritating math problem!)."

Oh goody the asshole wants to play parent for us god I hate nanny governments.

Oh and compelled speech was ruled unconstitutional before, I bet this one would be as well, in a heartbeat.

 

[Indiana Oracle]

Heres how it goes .

You have present all sides of an issue and not just one side.

If you dont present all sides then someone can demand time on your show to present their side of the issue.

Most shows would be just fine except Fox.

You like oversimplifying a restriction on free speech. The internet is the last bastion of free speech, and to take that away is to lead to .. well ... pick a bad form of government. Look it over more, there's even more to it than that, it infringes on private messages even. Anyone remember the last time that happened? A joke about anthrax almost got someone put to death because of an automated detection algorithm in an email server ... seriously! It's bad, it's wrong, and if he pushes this then **** the Democrats, I am going full blown Republican.

I would go a step farther, the internet is the modern-day Agora. Posted this on my blog when it was initiated (Indiana Oracle)

...the Athenian agora remains a foundational part of our democratic way of life where the opinion of man regardless of his station weighs equally with others in the common discourse.

...the blogosphere is increasingly becoming an electronic agora which is monitored by the media, politicians and others who see themselves as representing what we want within a federalist context.

Here for example, is what is posted to Wiki right now:
“…CNN, the BBC, and National Public Radio’s programs Morning Edition, Day To Day, and All Things Considered have used it [the term blogosphere] several times to discuss public opinion. A number of media outlets in recent years have started treating the blogosphere as a gauge of public opinion, and it has been cited in both academic and non-academic work as evidence of rising or falling resistance to globalization, voter fatigue, and many other phenomena,[3] and also in reference to identifying influential bloggers[4] and “familiar strangers” in the blogosphere.[5]“

 

[Coyote]

My first thought when I looked at it was....uh oh....WND - not the most reliable of sources.

Sure enough, it's another tempest in a teabag designed to get rightwing panties in a wad.


I hear people exclaiming "If they pass this I'll......".....

Folks...it's not even a proposal. It's not even by a stretch of the imagination a proposal. It's material, taken from a new book, written along the lines dozens of the typical smear-campaign-this-guy-is-a-threat-to-American-liberties fodder we seem to see so much of (in absence of serious scholarship).

In the end....what are the facts? From the article:

Later, Sunstein rethought his proposal, explaining that it would be "too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns." He also acknowledged that it was "almost certainly unconstitutional."

 

[KittenKoder]

My first thought when I looked at it was....uh oh....WND - not the most reliable of sources.

Sure enough, it's another tempest in a teabag designed to get rightwing panties in a wad.


I hear people exclaiming "If they pass this I'll......".....

Folks...it's not even a proposal. It's not even by a stretch of the imagination a proposal. It's material, taken from a new book, written along the lines dozens of the typical smear-campaign-this-guy-is-a-threat-to-American-liberties fodder we seem to see so much of (in absence of serious scholarship).

In the end....what are the facts? From the article:

Later, Sunstein rethought his proposal, explaining that it would be "too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns." He also acknowledged that it was "almost certainly unconstitutional."

The fact isn't this specifically, they have been talking about it, only a little at a time. Some countries already censor their internet access heavily, so it's not a stretch. But as long as someone is thinking about trying then it's always a possibility, regardless of what party they are on. How do you think the FCC got started? It didn't just suddenly get voted in and slam the hammer down. It was little by little, all in the guise of "protecting" people. This is just another mention of something that has been talked about by both parties too much lately to make anyone feel comfortable.

 

[Coyote]

My first thought when I looked at it was....uh oh....WND - not the most reliable of sources.

Sure enough, it's another tempest in a teabag designed to get rightwing panties in a wad.


I hear people exclaiming "If they pass this I'll......".....

Folks...it's not even a proposal. It's not even by a stretch of the imagination a proposal. It's material, taken from a new book, written along the lines dozens of the typical smear-campaign-this-guy-is-a-threat-to-American-liberties fodder we seem to see so much of (in absence of serious scholarship).

In the end....what are the facts? From the article:

Later, Sunstein rethought his proposal, explaining that it would be "too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns." He also acknowledged that it was "almost certainly unconstitutional."

The fact isn't this specifically, they have been talking about it, only a little at a time. Some countries already censor their internet access heavily, so it's not a stretch. But as long as someone is thinking about trying then it's always a possibility, regardless of what party they are on. How do you think the FCC got started? It didn't just suddenly get voted in and slam the hammer down. It was little by little, all in the guise of "protecting" people. This is just another mention of something that has been talked about by both parties too much lately to make anyone feel comfortable.

I don't think it has a snowball's chance in hell of becoming even a legitimate proposal. In fact there isn't much likelyhood of the Fairness Doctrine ever coming back - if you look at the history of it, it was put in place to rectify a problem that no longer exists and it was very narrowly defined and applied - there are so many open sources of media and news that monopolizing it with one viewpoint is no longer possible. The only "talking about it" that occurred was a handful of Democrats (less then a dozen I think) suggesting it and a whole lot of Rightwing Pundits spinning it and trying to scare the bejesus out of everyone.

Trying to apply that sort of control would be a Sisyphean task in terms of implementing and policing. I think it is more fear mongering.