Dems to Outlaw Free Speech on the Radio

  1. Dems to Outlaw Free Speech on the Radio


    DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT - New York Post

    Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I haven't heard anything about this on television stations, but it is all over conservative talk radio. Essentially, the concept is that all private radio stations must ensure that all political viewpoints receive equal airplay or face the wrath of the FCC.

    Believe it or not this is very popular among democrats and has been to the supreme court and not been struck down. Supposedly the democratic congress has not enacted this bill yet out of fear of Bush's veto, but if Obama got elected they expect him not to veto. Also with the inclusion of two-three more "liberal" justices, this may stick.

    There's also speculation that this would extend to private websites on the internet.

    This is a grievous attack on free speech and scares the daylights out of me. Regulating ideas is one more step toward a totalitarian regime and in theory it should be fought tooth and nail by the ACLU. Fat chance.


  2. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT - New York Post

    Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I haven't heard anything about this on television stations, but it is all over conservative talk radio. Essentially, the concept is that all private radio stations must ensure that all political viewpoints receive equal airplay or face the wrath of the FCC.

    Believe it or not this is very popular among democrats and has been to the supreme court and not been struck down. Supposedly the democratic congress has not enacted this bill yet out of fear of Bush's veto, but if Obama got elected they expect him not to veto. Also with the inclusion of two-three more "liberal" justices, this may stick.

    There's also speculation that this would extend to private websites on the internet.

    This is a grievous attack on free speech and scares the daylights out of me. Regulating ideas is one more step toward a totalitarian regime and in theory it should be fought tooth and nail by the ACLU. Fat chance.
    ...talk radio is the only media dems DON'T control. they may say 'equal' but they but i hear 'control'!

    btw did you hear about obama purchasing ad space on video games...just another way to sway the vote, the vote of young, ignorant, uneducated, or a compilation of the three! he's votes are limited to how many people can fit on his ginormus bangwagon!

  3. It was used to shut down a libertarian station in Hawai. They didn't have the dough to fight it so they closed down. Got to love those open minded liberals.

    Rich

    Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    DEMS GET SET TO MUZZLE THE RIGHT - New York Post

    Fairness Doctrine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I haven't heard anything about this on television stations, but it is all over conservative talk radio. Essentially, the concept is that all private radio stations must ensure that all political viewpoints receive equal airplay or face the wrath of the FCC.

    Believe it or not this is very popular among democrats and has been to the supreme court and not been struck down. Supposedly the democratic congress has not enacted this bill yet out of fear of Bush's veto, but if Obama got elected they expect him not to veto. Also with the inclusion of two-three more "liberal" justices, this may stick.

    There's also speculation that this would extend to private websites on the internet.

    This is a grievous attack on free speech and scares the daylights out of me. Regulating ideas is one more step toward a totalitarian regime and in theory it should be fought tooth and nail by the ACLU. Fat chance.
    •   
       


  4. I like how the dems love to portray the Republican party as the police-state party.


    Definitely the other way around, as we will see in the coming years.

  5. You'd think an organization like the ACLU would have the integrity to fight this. This is a BLATANT attempt to infringe on civil liberties. Just goes to show you who's side the ACLU is on.

    This should be THE issue in this race. This shows the true colors of the democratic party and what their ultimate goals are.

  6. Wow.

    The GOP continues to use this as a scare tactic, and it never gets old (to their base) it seems...

    It will never pass. You have kooks on both sides of the aisle that love the spotlight and say anything they can to obtain said spotlight. So it doesn't surprise me that one Democrat's words are suddenly being taken seriously near the election.

    Obama himself is opposed to the measure - and I laugh at those like Nancy Pelosi who have offered veiled support to reinstate it. Liberals aren't 60 year olds listening to their radios. Rush vicodin Limbaugh, and the rest of the puppets preach to the choir. If conservatives rule the radio, so be it. Who cares?

    Besides, it would never, ever survive a SCOTUS challenge.

  7. Quote Originally Posted by CDB View Post
    It was used to shut down a libertarian station in Hawai. They didn't have the dough to fight it so they closed down. Got to love those open minded liberals.

    Rich
    Holy fack.

  8. Good work. Minimize the threat. Make it sound like Republicans are kooks for bringing up this issue, even though this is a purely Democratic issue.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrogant View Post
    Wow.

    The GOP continues to use this as a scare tactic, and it never gets old (to their base) it seems...
    Because its censorship, pure and simple. Most Republicans respect the constitution.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrogant View Post
    It will never pass. You have kooks on both sides of the aisle that love the spotlight and say anything they can to obtain said spotlight. So it doesn't surprise me that one Democrat's words are suddenly being taken seriously near the election.
    Its not just any one Democrat's words. Its the US Senator from New Mexico. Kerry, Pelosi, Clinton, and several other Democrats wielding quite a bit of influence are in support of this measure. Keep in mind, this used to be law of the land for over 40 years.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrogant View Post
    Obama himself is opposed to the measure - and I laugh at those like Nancy Pelosi who have offered veiled support to reinstate it. Liberals aren't 60 year olds listening to their radios. Rush vicodin Limbaugh, and the rest of the puppets preach to the choir. If conservatives rule the radio, so be it. Who cares?
    Obama has voted with his party 98% of the time, but now you think he will veto his own parties measure.....going against Kerry, Pelosi, Clinton and other influential Democrats? Plus Obama has already shown a propensity to muzzle people. He tried to do a court injunction against a McCain ad featuring Ayers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Arrogant View Post
    Besides, it would never, ever survive a SCOTUS challenge.
    It has before. Look it up. It probably will again if Obama puts two more "living breathing" constitution justices in there.

  9. while I would never agree with this (fairness doctrine) hearing a republican complainnig about constitutional interpretation is always laughable to me, specifically when one looks at the 2nd amend.
    Official Get Diesel Representative
    PM me with any questions

  10. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    while I would never agree with this (fairness doctrine) hearing a republican complainnig about constitutional interpretation is always laughable to me, specifically when one looks at the 2nd amend.
    Um....you mean the right to bear arms?

  11. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Um....you mean the right to bear arms?
    indeed, talk about a living, breathing interpretation
    Official Get Diesel Representative
    PM me with any questions

  12. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    indeed, talk about a living, breathing interpretation
    Whatever. You're full of doo doo on this one.

  13. Hopefully this will never be passed.

    I don't think anyone should ever be coerced to tell both sides of any story.

    Especially if they are in a position to influence others.


  14. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post

    Because its censorship, pure and simple. Most Republicans respect the constitution.
    Would love some evidence of this in the last 8 years. :-)

  15. Quote Originally Posted by Urban Monk View Post
    Would love some evidence of this in the last 8 years. :-)
    Look at the justices that were put in place.

  16. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Look at the justices that were put in place.
    Republicans love the Constitution; they simply hate Conventions, though - especially those that begin with 'Geneva'.

    At any rate, this is a ridiculous measure that will not pass, IMO.

  17. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    At any rate, this is a ridiculous measure that will not pass, IMO.
    I find it hard to believe that it won't if Obama wins. Senior Dems including Pelosi, Kerry, and Clinton support this, and they control the house and senate. Obama votes on party lines 98% of the time. He will not veto this.

  18. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    I find it hard to believe that it won't if Obama wins. Senior Dems including Pelosi, Kerry, and Clinton support this, and they control the house and senate. Obama votes on party lines 98% of the time. He will not veto this.
    Falso.

    Obama actually wants to rebuke some of the ridiculous power the Bush Administration afforded the FCC.

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/

  19. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    Falso.

    Obama actually wants to rebuke some of the ridiculous power the Bush Administration afforded the FCC.

    http://www.barackobama.com/issues/technology/
    This is somewhat inaccurate, on further thought. The current administration has fundamentally manipulated the FCC during their reign, though.

  20. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    This is somewhat inaccurate, on further thought. The current administration has fundamentally manipulated the FCC during their reign, though.
    This definitely concerns me and the same faulty line of reasoning can be used to justify the fairness doctrine.

    Encourage Diversity in Media Ownership: Barack Obama believes that the nationís rules ensuring diversity of media ownership are critical to the public interest. Unfortunately, over the past several years, the Federal Communications Commission has promoted the concept of consolidation over diversity. As president, Obama will encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nationís spectrum.

  21. The Fairness Doctrine was done away with BY the FCC after Justices Bork & Scalia ruled (Appeals Court for DC) that the FCC was not required to implement the fairness doctrine, citing 1st-Amendment considerations that (from my preliminary study) turned the meaning and purpose of the FD inside-out.

    Not coincidentally, the actions that brought down the FD arose in the aftermath of the Iran-Contra scandal & IIRC pre-dated the rise of "conservative" talk-radio. Personally, I think there are questions there that need answering; if I can't find answers, I'll see what facts I can find, and then see if I can build an argument.

    Or, perhaps I'll find out what I want to know. In that case, I'll act on what I know.

  22. Quote Originally Posted by Mulletsoldier View Post
    This is somewhat inaccurate, on further thought. The current administration has fundamentally manipulated the FCC during their reign, though.
    As during the Reagan years, during which said manipulation hit its stride.

  23. Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard View Post
    The Fairness Doctrine was done away with BY the FCC after Justices Bork & Scalia ruled (Appeals Court for DC) that the FCC was not required to implement the fairness doctrine, citing 1st-Amendment considerations that (from my preliminary study) turned the meaning and purpose of the FD inside-out.

    Not coincidentally, the actions that brought down the FD arose in the aftermath of the Iran-Contra scandal & IIRC pre-dated the rise of "conservative" talk-radio. Personally, I think there are questions there that need answering; if I can't find answers, I'll see what facts I can find, and then see if I can build an argument.

    Or, perhaps I'll find out what I want to know. In that case, I'll act on what I know.
    There wasn't any conservative talk radio because of the fairness doctrine. There were only 125 talk radio stations in country when the FD was gotten rid of. There are tens of thousands now.

  24. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    Whatever. You're full of doo doo on this one.
    best response of the day right there
    Official Get Diesel Representative
    PM me with any questions

  25. Quote Originally Posted by Reaper329 View Post
    best response of the day right there

  26. Quote Originally Posted by RobInKuwait View Post
    There wasn't any conservative talk radio because of the fairness doctrine. There were only 125 talk radio stations in country when the FD was gotten rid of. There are tens of thousands now.
    Is there a disagreement here? As your highlighting emphasizes, the FD did not create or foster "conservative" talk-radio: it was the scrapping of the Fairness Doctrine that led to the phenomenon of " 'conservative' talk-radio".

  27. Quote Originally Posted by BodyWizard View Post
    Is there a disagreement here? As your highlighting emphasizes, the FD did not create or foster "conservative" talk-radio: it was the scrapping of the Fairness Doctrine that led to the phenomenon of " 'conservative' talk-radio".

    Which was a good thing!

    For answers to board issues, read the Suggestion and News forum at the bottom of the main page.

  28. What's really interesting about the FD is that it won't apply to NPR....a radio station funded by the government. Only private stations that have to pay their bills.

    Also, Al Sharpton, a noted liberal democrat, has a program that is defined by the FCC as "entertainment", not "political talk". So under the FD you have Rush in your line up followed by Sharpton, then you would still need a "liberal" to balance things.

    Too bad the FD didn't apply to Radio Free Europe. We could've had pro-freedom messages for one hour, followed pro-communist messages for the next hour. Obviously, people are entitled to all viewpoints.
  

  
 

Similar Forum Threads

  1. ~LG33~ Goes Outlaw!
    By Liftergym33 in forum LG Sciences
    Replies: 406
    Last Post: 11-27-2009, 05:43 AM
  2. Pearl Jam Has Free Speech Censored By Att !
    By anabolicrhino in forum General Chat
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-16-2007, 01:56 AM
  3. Kos Convention: Free Speech Not Welcome.
    By CNorris in forum Politics
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 08-06-2007, 01:26 AM
  4. Senate seeks to outlaw DHEA
    By picasso in forum News and Articles
    Replies: 36
    Last Post: 09-17-2005, 04:29 PM
  5. Replies: 24
    Last Post: 02-17-2005, 02:21 PM
Log in
Log in