Is Kori going to have to appoint a resident Democrat and Republican to answer charges or comments made if the new "fairness" law is passed as
the All American Girl, Nancy Pelosi and other in her party want. All in the name of fairness.
http://www.businessandmedia.org/arti...812160747.aspx
"FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content
McDowell warns reinstated powers could play in net neutrality debate, lead to government requiring balance on Web sites. "
I still don't understand what right the government has in taking over the private radio companies. The America we once knew is dead?
Do they really want the "left" POV to be heard on radios, or do they just want to kill the talk-radio industry?
Nationalize health care, nationalize oil refineries, nationalize the media...
It's Happppppeeeennnnnniiiinnnnnggggg
I abhor ideas like the fairness doctrine.
The scary part is they have brainwashed so many people into thinking the conservatives are the fascists/warmongers/greedy/elite/old clueless/etc, that there is very little public outrage/awareness as the left slowly moves their pieces into position.
Yes, and the right has done nothing to brainwash many people into thinking that democrats and liberals are socialists/communists/softies/abortion demanding/stupid/etc.
Sure. However, my above statement is still true and relates heavily to this topic.
I think there will be plenty of awareness if this ever got anywhere close to being legislated. I also think the SC would strike it down soon afterward.
The didn't the last time it was passed.
My thoughts are why not tell our reps NOW to keep free press/radio/internet what is now FREE! Let the people, us, decide what we want to read/hear/post. I don't need no stinking publican telling me how they should be fair. I am the judge of fair!
Anyone in Congress who votes for this should be tried for treason against the Cons ution of the United States.
Perhaps that's because the "right" nominated a President who has clearly been among the most inept world leaders in recent history? And they coupled that with a VP that has massive ties to big business, sat on the chair of a filthy rich company which profited in extremes from a war that the American public didn't want.
That might be a good start.
No your the one who is brainwashed with conservative talk radio.
The article is just some guy opining that "they'll regulate the internets too!", nothing to back it up.
Setting the free speech argument aside (and fwiw, I'm not in favor of the Fairness Doctrine), the reason the FCC is involved in the first place is radio bandwicth is a limited commodity. The internet doesn't have those kinds of limits. Internet content can't be monopolized by corporate backed right wing nuttery.
It's not only that...wing-nut politicians has stood by idly while media conglomerates like Clear Channel have goobeled up radio and TV stations and are trying to do the same to newspapers and the internet...today 5-7 major conglomerates control 80% of the news that most Americans get daily....it's a dangerous situation to our national sovereignty because these conglomerates are always going to put their own bottom lines above the good of the nation....they fundamentally control the news..and he who controls the news controls the country....
What we need is legislation that will lead to greater diversity in the way we get our news...the 'fairness doctrine' isn't closing down wing-nut radio, it's merely enforcing the calls for greater diversity that a majority of Americans want, but that corporate America loathes...
It would also seem to contravene the First Amendment -- small detail, I know.
Some would say that the First Amendment is already being contravened by limited ownership - a situation that the framers of the Amendment could not have imagined possible for sure....
Oh, I think the framers of the Bill of Rights imagined limited ownership of media -- it more or less existed in the late 18th century in the same functional sense that it exists today. What they might not have imagined is the diverse means that currently exist for dissemination of information. With that, the First Amendment's assurances of free speech and free press would certainly not seem to contemplate governmentally-enforced restrictions of the viewpoints espoused by the press/media.
The fairness doctrine is not 'limiting free speech', per se......wing-nut radio and TV is not restricted from continuing to make asinine comments that surely hurt their own cause....what the fairness doctrine does do, however is to help assure that equal time be given for opposing view-points by M$M conglomerates...a situation which is become dangerously rare today....
And that's an governmentally-imposed limitation on viewpoint, which is an hetical to the basic tenets of free speech and free press. I realize that you believe it's better for society, but I'm telling you that it's fundamentally contrary to the First Amendment, particularly in a society where there are very few limits on the dissemination of information (media is more than radio and television) and I seriously doubt that there's any chance that such legislation would survive judicial review, regardless of the ideological bent of the court reviewing that legislation.
....TV and radio stations do not own the airwaves they rent the airwaves from the FCC..in exchange these en ies are supposed to look over the common good of our republic....when these stations refuse to protect this responsibility and the FCC is inept because it has been corrupted by the very en y it is supposed to oversee, then it's the responsibility of every American to take back these airwaves....so spare me the dialog about infringed ownership rights...if these responsibilities had not been abridged in the first place we would not be at this point....and the will of the people of the repubic will survive any judicial review...
So how do you reimburse the stations for lost revenue when they are forced to replace a successful program with a less successful program in order to "balance" their coverage?
What about cable? Cable isn't on the airwaves. How do you legislate that?
I don't know why anybody is psychotic about this? If this thing ever becomes law, it will be challenged in court and stricken down as uncons utional.
Net neutrality has nothing to do with this, however. And I think this is where the article has it's bias (trying to equate the two). Unlike television or radio, where there are both time and space constraints, there's no such thing on the internet. That's why the whole fairness doctrine does not, and cannot be compared to net neutrality.
So, whats next? Are they going to force you to watch equal amounts of porn from each race, and even throw in some gay porn even if thats not your bag, just to be fair?
most Americans, regardless of political ideology, are not in favor of the FD.
1969 SC Ruling; The Court warned that if the doctrine ever restrained speech, then its cons utionality should be reconsidered. Without ruling the doctrine uncons utional, the Court also concluded in a subsequent case (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241) that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate."In 1984, the Supreme Court decided that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine did not apply to expanding communications technologies, and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters of California, 468 U.S. 364 (1984)). The Court's majority decision by William J. Brennan, Jr. noted concerns that the Fairness Doctrine was "chilling speech," and added that the Supreme Court would be "forced" to revisit the cons utionality of the doctrine if it did have "the net effect of reducing rather than enhancing speech."And rightly so.In August 1987, the FCC abolished the doctrine by a 4-0 vote
For those who might not otherwise know, William J. Brennan is among the most liberal justices to sit on the Supreme Court in the last century. His doubts about the cons utionality of the Fairness Doctrine are telling to those who will eventually seek to assess any such law enacted by Congress or any other such regulation imposed by the bureaucracy. If anything the justifications that once existed to support the imposition of such regulations -- limited public airwaves and such -- are wholly mitigated by the fact that the avenues for dissemination of opinion are now almost limitless.
But that's just it: there is no regulation that compels radio and TV station owners to do what you're proposing. At this point, the imposition of such a regulation would be a matter of new law and, as even Justice Brennan seemed to understand, such regulation would almost necessarily violate the basic tenets of the First Amendment -- both as a matter of free speech and as a matter of free press. Historically, the framers knew of a press that tended to be fractionalized and overtly partisan. It is inconceivable to me -- and I think to those who know the Cons ution best (I'm not in that group) -- that the framers believed that government regulation of viewpoint in the media could in any way be consistent with the guarantees embodied in the speech and press clauses of the First Amendment.
For myself, I can't imagine anyone who believes in civil liberties as framed by the Cons ution who would support the Fairness Doctrine.
You're talking about some sort of implied responsiblity -- one that once existed expressly but, as jochhejaam just showed, has been done away with -- that exists in a vacuum free from the guarantees of the First Amendment?
Finally, the will of the People must necessarily yield to judicial review where the will of the People violates the Cons ution. Besides, if the will of the People is truly viewpoint diversity in media outlets, the free market will dictate that the media outlets respond to that will.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
