The Fairness Doctrine

[Skull Pilot]

Now that the election is over we can get to fighting the attacks that will be made on our freedoms.

We know have a government with people who think free speech is just like pornography.

[youtube]E63EEyVy_5A&eurl[/youtube]

"You can't say government hands off in one commercial enterprise ,but you're allowed to intervene in another that's not consistent"

Schumer likens speech on privately owned radio and TV stations to pornography and says they both should be controlled.

This my fellow Americans is just the beginning.

 

[midcan5]

So where do you draw the limit? Is hate speech ok when directed against any religion, ethnic group, or political party?

 

[Ravi]

I'm against the fairness doctrine and I think most Americans are.

 

[del]

So where do you draw the limit? Is hate speech ok when directed against any religion, ethnic group, or political party?

why not?
doesn't your radio/tv have a tuner? why should the govt decide what gets to be said and what can't be said? are we not capable of deciding for ourselves?

 

[midcan5]

This piece is good and below is the alternative argument - an example of the fairness doctrine in action.

The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

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.


Why The Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair

 

[Skull Pilot]

This piece is good and below is the alternative argument - an example of the fairness doctrine in action.

The Fairness Doctrine: How We Lost it, and Why We Need it Back

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.


Why The Fairness Doctrine Is Anything But Fair

It is not the job of the government to tell a privately owned entity what speech it can or cannot broadcast, print,or publish.

And viewers and listeners ARE making those decisions aren't they. Just look at the absolute failure Air America was. Now the government is saying that radio stations have to air what the public doesn't want?

 

[Andrew2382]

That is why there is a tuner, if there is something you don't want to listen too you have the ability to change the station.

It's ok, luckily the fairness doctrine won't transfer over too satelitte radio, if this gets enacted it will just be the final nail in the coffin for AM radio and everyone will move to sirius

 

[Paulie]

Everyone's already being forced to have digital cable come next year, so why not take over radio as well.

 

[Andrew2382]

Everyone's already being forced to have digital cable come next year, so why not take over radio as well.

They aren't taking over digital cable, but switching over the analog signal to digital.

So its for people who want the free tv, AS OF RIGHT NOW, government can not do anything about satelitte radio because it is a paid subscription.

But hey, I am sure they can get their hands in it someway or another

 

[Navy1960]

The Fairness Doctrine attempts to level the playing field in a commerical medium that it's been proven especially in talk radio that liberal talk personalities have traditionally not faired well. So, because people do not care to listen to stations like Air America and others, the Fairness doctrine attempts to force them too anyway. What most don't seem to grasp here, is the fact there is a thing called and off button, and something further a little thing called a *choice* to listen or not.

However, the Fairness Doctirne can cut both way's, take for example, shows like Keith Olbermann's and Maddow's . The implemeantation of this doctrine would itself bring about the change not only in media on the conservative level but also on the liberal level.

 

[KGB]

The Fairness Doctrine attempts to level the playing field in a commerical medium that it's been proven especially in talk radio that liberal talk personalities have traditionally not faired well. So, because people do not care to listen to stations like Air America and others, the Fairness doctrine attempts to force them too anyway. What most don't seem to grasp here, is the fact there is a thing called and off button, and something further a little thing called a *choice* to listen or not.

However, the Fairness Doctirne can cut both way's, take for example, shows like Keith Olbermann's and Maddow's . The implemeantation of this doctrine would itself bring about the change not only in media on the conservative level but also on the liberal level.

it won't be worded that way.....

 

[Navy1960]

it won't be worded that way.....

KGB, even though this issue may have no problems breezing through the House, I don't see it getting through the Senate, so the legislation ave. is out. That leaves the policy track , and just have the FCC bring back the old policy. That leaves issues as well.

The Fairness Doctrine was a policy of the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) that required the holders of broadcast licenses to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was honest, equitable, and balanced. The United States Supreme Court has upheld the Commission's general right to enforce such a policy where channels are limited, but the courts have generally not considered that the FCC is obliged to do so.[1] The FCC has since withdrawn the Fairness Doctrine, prompting some to urge its reintroduction through either Commission policy or Congressional legislation.

The limited channels argument does not hold sway any longer with the advent of XM Radio and Cable. Further, if you apply the standards of honest, equitable, and balanced to ALL media, then liberal as well as conservative voices will have to be equally applied. I see this issue as resulting and very long and very protracted court battle lasting for sometime. So I would not be planning on the death of any talk radio anytime soon be it liberal or conservative.

 

[Skull Pilot]

The Fairness Doctrine attempts to level the playing field in a commerical medium that it's been proven especially in talk radio that liberal talk personalities have traditionally not faired well. So, because people do not care to listen to stations like Air America and others, the Fairness doctrine attempts to force them too anyway. What most don't seem to grasp here, is the fact there is a thing called and off button, and something further a little thing called a *choice* to listen or not.

However, the Fairness Doctirne can cut both way's, take for example, shows like Keith Olbermann's and Maddow's . The implemeantation of this doctrine would itself bring about the change not only in media on the conservative level but also on the liberal level.

I understand your point but I don't listen to or watch those shows that tout political spin I disagree with and it is my choice. That's how I like it and that's how it should be.

What will probably happen, and I hope it does, is that we will see a huge increase of internet broadcasting. No need for FCC or use of the public airwaves. And i think people will revolt if the government tell the public they have no right to bandwidth.

 

[WillowTree]

The Liberal Motto has always been and always will be. "Free speech for me, but not for thee"


There's a good reason all those asswipes throw chairs at conservatives to shut them up! Shades of Columbia University, where a conservative cannot speak but Immadinnajacket is given the podium to spew his Anti American filth in full public view. End of story.

 

[Shogun]

Given the finite NATIONAL resource that is radio waves I support the fairness doctrine. Take your fucking asses to satellite radio or push for wifi access for WAN net radio access.

fucking crybabies.

 

[Navy1960]

I understand your point but I don't listen to or watch those shows that tout political spin I disagree with and it is my choice. That's how I like it and that's how it should be.

What will probably happen, and I hope it does, is that we will see a huge increase of internet broadcasting. No need for FCC or use of the public airwaves. And i think people will revolt if the government tell the public they have no right to bandwidth.

I agree that this will result in an explosion of internet and sat. radio. and pay services. My point is that the goal to level the playing field though while its target is the so called conservative talking heads will result in protracted legal fight and if implemented will no doubt level that field across liberal shows as well. So each time you see an opinion expressed by someone , someone else will demand equal time. Each time you hear Keith Olbermann or Sean Hannity someone on the other side will demand equal time. I see this as a never ending cycle when the goal was to appease a limited number of partisans in the first place. IMO the Fairness Doctrine will eventually backfire on it's intended target and when it does you will end up back where we began and that where we are today. When the simple answer is for people to take some personal responsibility and just turn off what they do not like.

 

[sealybobo]

Now that the election is over we can get to fighting the attacks that will be made on our freedoms.

We know have a government with people who think free speech is just like pornography.

[youtube]E63EEyVy_5A&eurl[/youtube]

"You can't say government hands off in one commercial enterprise ,but you're allowed to intervene in another that's not consistent"

Schumer likens speech on privately owned radio and TV stations to pornography and says they both should be controlled.

This my fellow Americans is just the beginning.

You can't? Cause that's what the GOP did for 8 years. Talked out of both sides of their mouths.

Radio used to be a big industry, until it was deregulated and all those thousands of individually owned small business' were bought up by 10 companies. Those are public airwaves. Those companies don't own the airwaves. They just purchase the right to use our airwaves.

It's like defense spending or oil companies. The defense companies are profitting off tax payers dollars. So it doesn't qualify for the free market rules. And oil companies are taking our oil off our lands.

We can regulate them a little more than the car companies or computer companies, as an example, because they aren't making anything that the "free market" can buy.

I don't think I'm explaining myself properly.

All I know is the GOP deregulated radio so they could buy everything up and spew their propoganda without competition.

Rush is a piece of shit. Randi Rhodes would be more popular if Clearchannel put her head to head against him. But they won't, because they prefer Rush's propoganda. And this serves society how?

 

[JimH52]

Now that the election is over we can get to fighting the attacks that will be made on our freedoms.

You are kidding, right? We just watched 8 years of warrantless wiretapping, political favoritism, and torture and you still deny that you voted for a "wannabe" King twice.

I AM GLAD YOU WILL HAVE TO WATCH OBAMA, A BLACK MAN, RULE THIS COUNTRY FOR 4 YEARS.

 

[KGB]

You can't? Cause that's what the GOP did for 8 years. Talked out of both sides of their mouths.

Radio used to be a big industry, until it was deregulated and all those thousands of individually owned small business' were bought up by 10 companies. Those are public airwaves. Those companies don't own the airwaves. They just purchase the right to use our airwaves.

It's like defense spending or oil companies. The defense companies are profitting off tax payers dollars. So it doesn't qualify for the free market rules. And oil companies are taking our oil off our lands.

We can regulate them a little more than the car companies or computer companies, as an example, because they aren't making anything that the "free market" can buy.

I don't think I'm explaining myself properly.

All I know is the GOP deregulated radio so they could buy everything up and spew their propoganda without competition.

Rush is a piece of shit. Randi Rhodes would be more popular if Clearchannel put her head to head against him. But they won't, because they prefer Rush's propoganda. And this serves society how?

you know, there is a little something called the OFF switch if you don't like a program....I don't like half the crap that comes over the liberal tube & the liberal rags, so I do something I am perfectly capable of....& that is to make up my own mind & ignore it.....

 

[Tech_Esq]

Given the finite NATIONAL resource that is radio waves I support the fairness doctrine. Take your fucking asses to satellite radio or push for wifi access for WAN net radio access.

fucking crybabies.

Interesting, you want to limit people's free speech and you call THEM crybabies.

Hmmm.