what is the fairness doctrine

[red states rule]

Did you read it?

its says NOT ONE FUCKING THING about not saying something.

You can say whatever you want BUT you would have to allow the person you attacked to have air time on your show to give his side.

Are you saying you are affraid what Rush and Oliely and the like say will not stand up to an airing of what they people thye smear would say?

Libs even admit they are out to "get" Rush

How much more do you need then that?

All Air America did was smear - that is why they went bankrupt

 

[Truthmatters]

You are on your last legs dude.

This law would HELP them if there truely is a left wing attempt to get him.

Why would you take away tools which could help him "clear" his name?

 

[red states rule]

You are on your last legs dude.

This law would HELP them if there truely is a left wing attempt to get him.

Why would you take away tools which could help him "clear" his name?

Why not let the people decide who they want to listen to?

Oh they have

That is why libs want the Fairness Doctrine so they will only have liberal radio to listen to

 

[Truthmatters]

you want lies to reign!

You are a tool and a troll and I will bother with you NO MORE.

You dont want to discuss anything you want to spout right wing talking points.

I dont know if someone pays you to do this or if you are really just this stupid?

I dont care your toast.

 

[red states rule]

you want lies to reign!

You are a tool and a troll and I will bother with you NO MORE.

You dont want to discuss anything you want to spout right wing talking points.

I dont know if someone pays you to do this or if you are really just this stupid?

I dont care your toast.

Oh, are you surrendering like the Dems did to Pres Bush?

The last thing you want is for the people to CHOOSE who they want to listen to on the radio

Your side loses everytime

 

[Bern80]

How would this doctrine silence conservitives?

How does having to supply air time to the people you have attacked (no matter what leaning they have) effect conservitives more than any ohter mindset?

I believe Kathy's post in the other thread answers that as well. In a nutshell what it says is that if put into that position most businesses will simply stop expressing any viewpoints at all, in lieu of haveing to supply equal air time to opposing view points.

 

[Bern80]

you want lies to reign!

You are a tool and a troll and I will bother with you NO MORE.

You dont want to discuss anything you want to spout right wing talking points.

I dont know if someone pays you to do this or if you are really just this stupid?

I dont care your toast.

as oppossed to your left wing talking points?

you're the other side of the same coin buddy

 

[red states rule]

I believe Kathy's post in the other thread answers that as well. In a nutshell what it says is that if put into that position most businesses will simply stop expressing any viewpoints at all, in lieu of haveing to supply equal air time to opposing view points.

funny how the left screams over the government wanting to listen to terrorist phone calls but want the government to listen and monitor political speech

 

[Bern80]

where Gunny does it say anything about right or left?

Dont you get it ?

If you people truely believe we had a left leaning media dont you want it challenged?

Sure I'd love it challenged, but I sure as hell wouldn't want it legisltated either

Dont you want it to be held to the pressure of all the facts and all the points of view?

This just blows me away that you Claim there is a "left leaning" news yet you trash a doctrine which would Give you the chance to sing at it daily?

It blows you away because it highlights an essemtial difference between what libs want for the country and what conservatives want for the country.

This last section highlights this perfectly. What libs (and you) are trying to gain through this doctrine (and trying to gain in all facets of life) is equal outcomes. Basically offering a life long handicap plan. Like spotting another teram 20 points basically just because you suck, instead of you actually attempting to get better.

 

[theHawk]

You are on your last legs dude.

This law would HELP them if there truely is a left wing attempt to get him.

Why would you take away tools which could help him "clear" his name?

You're assuming that the law would be evenly enforced, which would be highly unlikely. And why would any talk show have to offer on air time for people they critisize? I agree it always tasteful to offer the people on-air time to rebute, but to make it illegal not to is simply unconstitutional.

 

[Truthmatters]

Its not making any speach illegal its making false accusations without letting the person you accused to have a chance to defend themselfs agains the onslaught.

It would go both ways.

 

[red states rule]

You're assuming that the law would be evenly enforced, which would be highly unlikely. And why would any talk show have to offer on air time for people they critisize? I agree it always tasteful to offer the people on-air time to rebute, but to make it illegal not to is simply unconstitutional.

all the left wants out of this is to put Rush, Sean, Laura, and other conservative talk show hosts out of business

 

[Truthmatters]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Personal attacks; political editorials.
"(a) When, during the presentation of views on a controversial issue of public importance, an attack is made upon the honesty, character, integrity or like personal qualities of an identified person or group, the licensee shall, within a reasonable time and in no event later than 1 week after the attack, transmit to the person or group attacked (1) notification of the date, time and identification of the broadcast; (2) a script or tape (or an accurate summary if a script or tape is not available) of the [374] attack; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity to respond over the licensee's facilities.

"(b) The provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall not be applicable (1) to attacks on foreign groups or foreign public figures; (2) to personal attacks which are made by legally qualified candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or those associated with them in the campaign, on other such candidates, their authorized spokesmen, or persons associated with the candidates in the campaign; and (3) to bona fide newscasts, bona fide news interviews, and on-the-spot coverage of a bona fide news event (including commentary or analysis contained in the foregoing programs, but the provisions of paragraph (a) of this section shall be applicable to editorials of the licensee).

"NOTE: The fairness doctrine is applicable to situations coming within [(3)], above, and, in a specific factual situation, may be applicable in the general area of political broadcasts [(2)], above. See, section 315 (a) of the Act, 47 U.S.C. 315 (a); Public Notice: Applicability of the Fairness Doctrine in the Handling of Controversial Issues of Public Importance. 29 F. R. 10415. The categories listed in [(3)] are the same as those specified in section 315 (a) of the Act.

"(c) Where a licensee, in an editorial, (i) endorses or (ii) opposes a legally qualified candidate or candidates, the licensee shall, within 24 hours after the editorial, transmit to respectively (i) the other qualified candidate or candidates for the same office or (ii) the candidate opposed in the editorial (1) notification of the date and the time of the editorial; (2) a script or tape of the editorial; and (3) an offer of a reasonable opportunity for a candidate or a spokesman of the candidate to respond over the [375] licensee's facilities: Provided, however, That where such editorials are broadcast within 72 hours prior to the day of the election, the licensee shall comply with the provisions of this paragraph sufficiently far in advance of the broadcast to enable the candidate or candidates to have a reasonable opportunity to prepare a response and to present it in a timely fashion." 47 CFR 73.123, 73.300, 73.598, 73.679 (all identical).

 

[Truthmatters]

This is from a SCOTUS case where its constitutionality was upheld

 

[red states rule]

Its not making any speach illegal its making false accusations without letting the person you accused to have a chance to defend themselfs agains the onslaught.

It would go both ways.

Conservstives have talk radio, and the left has TV, and the print media

What is your beef?