PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Nancy Pelosi vs. Free Speech


HonestChieffan
07-27-2008, 10:23 AM
Nancy baby wants to censor. Imagine this issue...a wild eyed liberal who now is wanting to impose rules that Stalin would have enjoyed. You democrats must be proud of this one.



Nancy Pelosi vs. the Internet [wants Congress members to get permission before internet postings]

July 09, 2008 2:39:43 PM by John Jorsett

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who would like very much to reimpose the old, so-called, “Fairness Doctrine” that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting, is scheming to impose rules barring any member of Congress from posting opinions on any internet site without first obtaining prior approval from the Democratic leadership of Congress. No blogs, twitter, online forums - nothing.

This was first reported to me by Congressman John Culberson (R-Tx) and I asked for approval to cite him and for any media links to this story. He provided the following link of regulations proposed by the Chair of the Congressional Commission on Mailing Standards (PDF) Congressman Michael Capuano (D-Mass) that was sent to Rep. Robert Brady, Chairman of the House Committee for Administration. The net effect of the regs would be to make it practically impossible for members of Congress to use social media tools to discuss official business or share video of the same with the public while creating a partisan disparity in what little approved messages might be permitted. It would be a very considerable error to assume that the House leadership intends to let dissenting Democratic members post any more freely than Republicans.

Set aside the nakedly partisan aspect of this plan for a moment - on the technological merits alone this may be the ******* dumbest thing I’ve heard of regarding the Internet coming out of Congress in a long, long time. The dinosaurs who are uncomfortable with computers, the unwashed masses being aware of their actions and free political debate want to turn the clock back to the 1970s. Except during the 1970s no one would have dared to propose controlling what a democratically elected member of Congress could say to their constituents. Doesn’t it register in the Beltway that they are talking about public information that already belongs to the people of the United States? Senators and Congressmen should be interacting with citizens more freely, not less; the U.S. Congress needs radical transparency not greater opacity imposed by the Democratic House leadership to better hide shady dealings

It’s a brazenly Orwellian and most likely unconstitutional power grab by the Speaker of the House unlike anything dreamed of by any previous speaker - not Sam Rayburn, not Joseph Cannon. Nobody.

Nancy Pelosi has finally arrived at a historical pinnacle - as an enemy of free speech and the public’s right to know.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2043051/posts

***SPRAYER
07-27-2008, 10:27 AM
The Democrat party is de facto the Communist party. They want to abolish the first and second amendments.

SBK
07-27-2008, 10:29 AM
Supreme Court shuts down their attempt to take away the 2nd Amendment, so Nancy has decided to start over from the beginning?

alanm
07-27-2008, 10:30 AM
The Democrat party is de facto the Communist party. They want to abolish the first and second amendments.
And the whole oil drilling thing also. :D

alanm
07-27-2008, 10:33 AM
I guess one could hope that when the Big one finally hits Frisco that Pelosi is home in bed when the city slides off into the bay.:thumb:

StcChief
07-27-2008, 10:33 AM
what do you want she's from the people republic of Kalifornia :shrug:

Adept Havelock
07-27-2008, 10:49 AM
While I agree Pelosi's suggestion is beyond absurd, this is such an egregious misrepresentation of the original FD (circa '49) it should be pointed out.


the old, so-called, “Fairness Doctrine” that once censored conservative opinion on television and radio broadcasting,

The original doctrine, established in '49, and later incorporated into FCC rules, was established in the midst of the Red Scare.

In short:

The Fairness Doctrine was introduced in an atmosphere of anti-Communist sentiment in the U.S. in 1949 (Report on Editorializing by Broadcast Licensees, 13 F.C.C. 1246 [1949]). The doctrine remained a matter of general policy, and was applied on a case-by-case basis until 1967, when certain provisions of the doctrine were incorporated into FCC regulations. [2] It did not require equal time for opposing views, but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The Fairness Doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows or editorials.

It had nothing to do with "silencing Conservative viewpoints". In fact, is was partly created during the Red Scare to insure that papers and radio stations did not air solely Leftist views.

The op-ed articles author is engaging in nothing but a paranoid version of revisionist history.

It was upheld in '69 under the following rationale:

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."

However the doctrine was struck down in '84. Why? Because the Supreme Court found that the "Scarcity Rationale" no longer applied. From '49 until the late seventies/early eighties, there were so few media outlets (compared to today) it was seen as a necessary thing to require all media outlets to air contrasting and competing views on "controversial matters of public interest". However, with the rise of many new media outlets, that rationale no longer applied, and the doctrine was (correctly) quashed by the FCC.

While the Left does still toss rhetoric about restoring it to its fringe members that want it restored, it is telling no legislative effort to restore it has been made since 1991, over 15 years ago.

In the face of the SC decision of '84, and the widespread variety of media outlets, it would never survive a court challenge, even if it was somehow passed and signed into law.

At this point, I see such calls as little more than the Left wing version of the rhetoric the Right directs at the RTL crowd. Sure, they say things to fire up those members, especially in an election year, yet never seem to do much of anything legislatively about it.

JMO.

SNR
07-27-2008, 10:50 AM
I honestly believe that if Nancy Pelosi were president for the past 8 years, she would, in fact, be WORSE than GW Bush. It's obvious she's incapable of handling anything big.

Adept Havelock
07-27-2008, 10:53 AM
I honestly believe that if Nancy Pelosi were president for the past 8 years, she would, in fact, be WORSE than GW Bush. It's obvious she's incapable of handling anything big.

You may well be right. Thankfully, we'll never find out.

chiefforlife
07-27-2008, 11:35 AM
What is wrong with this lady? And how did she get where she is?

Adept Havelock
07-27-2008, 11:36 AM
What is wrong with this lady? And how did she get where she is?

How did we get stuck with an idiot like Pelosi?

The same way we got stuck with idiots like former Sen. Santorum of PA and Bush 43.

Like minded idiots elected her.

HonestChieffan
07-27-2008, 11:42 AM
shes the darling of the left wing. They made her speaker of the house, not the voters in san francisco

***SPRAYER
07-27-2008, 11:44 AM
Nancy Pelosi is the Queen of the Moonbats.

http://thepeoplescube.com/red/viewtopic.php?p=9060

Climb aboard

THE SHITSPRAYER STRAIGHT TALK EXPRESS™

Mosbonian
07-27-2008, 11:51 AM
How did we get stuck with an idiot like Pelosi?

The same way we got stuck with idiots like former Sen. Santorum of PA and Bush 43.

Like minded idiots elected her.

In the case of Bush43 it wasn't because 'like-minded idiots" elected him in some cases...it was because he was the lesser of 2 evils. Had the Democrats had even the hint of a better candidate, they could have locked the election. But to try and pass off Kerry/Edwards to cross-over voters showed a complete lack of understanding.

mmaddog
*******

Adept Havelock
07-27-2008, 12:15 PM
In the case of Bush43 it wasn't because 'like-minded idiots" elected him in some cases...it was because he was the lesser of 2 evils. Had the Democrats had even the hint of a better candidate, they could have locked the election. But to try and pass off Kerry/Edwards to cross-over voters showed a complete lack of understanding.

mmaddog
*******

In some cases, but there were enough "like minded idiots" to push him over the top, IMO.

However, I do agree that the Democratic Party's offerings were also weak. I'm far from convinced "Bush was the lesser of two evils", as I see little to recommend either of them.

***SPRAYER
07-27-2008, 12:18 PM
In some cases, but there were enough "like minded idiots" to push him over the top, IMO.

However, I do agree that the Democratic Party's offerings were also weak. I'm far from convinced "Bush was the lesser of two evils", as I see little to recommend either of them.

Supreme court nominee's Alito and Roberts validates Bush's otherwise horrible second term.

HonestChieffan
07-27-2008, 12:21 PM
Bush didnt create 90% of the stuff that the Bush-bashers are so hatefilled about. But you wont ever admit it cause you cant understand it.

alanm
07-27-2008, 12:34 PM
shes the darling of the left wing. They made her speaker of the house, not the voters in san francisco
The idiot voters of Frisco put her in position to be speaker. :shake:

Adept Havelock
07-27-2008, 12:34 PM
Bush didnt create 90% of the stuff that the Bush-bashers are so hatefilled about. But you wont ever admit it cause you cant understand it.

"Can't understand it" LMAO LMAO LMAO

The day I take intellectual criticism from HCF is the same day I look to GoChiefs for Romantic advice.

ROFL

Supreme court nominee's Alito and Roberts validates Bush's otherwise horrible second term.

In your mind, maybe.

Sorry, getting one thing right out of hundreds doesn't impress me.

I'm not keen on a Baseball guy who is batting .020 over Eight seasons.

SNR
07-27-2008, 12:39 PM
"Can't understand it" LMAO LMAO LMAO

The day I take intellectual criticism from HCF is the same day I look to GoChiefs for Romantic advice.

ROFL

You might be wise to rethink that comparison. Ever see the "There are people having sex in my house" thread?

Adept Havelock
07-27-2008, 12:40 PM
You might be wise to rethink that comparison. Ever see the "There are people having sex in my house" thread?

Heh. I'm confident HCF's intellectual prowess is quite comparable to GoChiefs understanding of romantic relationships.

Granted, both may be very knowledgeable individuals in real life, but you can't tell it from their posts here.

banyon
07-27-2008, 01:18 PM
took about 2 minutes of digging to figure out this was hooey.

The only thing Pelosi (and I am no fan) has done is to refuse to endorse this guy's bill. She doesn't have any counter bill AFAICT. The Bill was discharged out of committee and lacks sufficient signatures to continue. Blame your ineffectual Republican leadership for not getting the required 218 signatures (which could be done just with Republican votes).

_______________-

Latest Major Action: 6/28/2007 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.
Note: On 10/17/2007, a motion was filed to discharge the Rules Committee from consideration of H.Res. 694, which provides for the consideration of H.R. 2905. A discharge petition requires 218 signatures for further action. (Discharge Petition No. 110-3: text with signatures.)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:h.r.02905:

_________________
110th CONGRESS

1st Session

H. R. 2905
To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.


IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES


June 28, 2007

Mr. PENCE (for himself, Mr. WALDEN of Oregon, Mr. BOEHNER, Mr. BLUNT, Mr. HASTERT, Mr. PUTNAM, Mr. CANTOR, Mr. HENSARLING, Mr. FLAKE, Mr. ADERHOLT, Mr. AKIN, Mrs. BACHMANN, Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina, Mr. BARTON of Texas, Mr. BILBRAY, Mr. BISHOP of Utah, Mrs. BLACKBURN, Mrs. BONO, Mr. BOOZMAN, Mr. BRADY of Texas, Mr. BROWN of South Carolina, Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida, Mr. BURGESS, Mr. BURTON of Indiana, Mr. BUYER, Mr. CALVERT, Mr. CAMP of Michigan, Mr. CAMPBELL of California, Mr. CANNON, Mr. CARTER, Mr. COLE of Oklahoma, Mr. CONAWAY, Mr. CRENSHAW, Mr. CULBERSON, Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky, Mr. DAVID DAVIS of Tennessee, Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia, Mr. DEAL of Georgia, Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida, Mr. DOOLITTLE, Mrs. DRAKE, Mr. DUNCAN, Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania, Mr. EVERETT, Ms. FALLIN, Mr. FEENEY, Mr. FORTUN.AE6O, Ms. FOXX, Mr. FRANKS of Arizona, Mr. GARRETT of New Jersey, Mr. GINGREY, Mr. GOHMERT, Mr. GOODE, Mr. GOODLATTE, Mr. GRAVES, Mr. HASTINGS of Washington, Mr. HERGER, Mr. HOEKSTRA, Mr. HUNTER, Mr. ISSA, Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. JORDAN of Ohio, Mr. KELLER of Florida, Mr. KING of Iowa, Mr. KINGSTON, Mr. KIRK, Mr. KLINE of Minnesota, Mr. KUHL of New York, Mr. LAMBORN, Mr. LATHAM, Mr. LUCAS, Mr. DANIEL E. LUNGREN of California, Mr. MACK, Mr. MARCHANT, Mr. MCCARTHY of California, Mr. MCCRERY, Mr. MCHENRY, Mr. MILLER of Florida, Mr. GARY G. MILLER of California, Mrs. MUSGRAVE, Mrs. MYRICK, Mr. NEUGEBAUER, Mr. PAUL, Mr. PEARCE, Mr. PITTS, Mr. POE, Mr. PRICE of Georgia, Mr. RADANOVICH, Mr. REYNOLDS, Mr. ROYCE, Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin, Mrs. SCHMIDT, Mr. SENSENBRENNER, Mr. SESSIONS, Mr. SHADEGG, Mr. SHUSTER, Mr. SIMPSON, Mr. SMITH of Nebraska, Mr. SMITH of Texas, Mr. SOUDER, Mr. STEARNS, Mr. TERRY, Mr. TIAHRT, Mr. WALBERG, Mr. WELDON of Florida, Mr. WESTMORELAND, Mr. WHITFIELD, Mr. WICKER, Mr. WILSON of South Carolina, Mr. WOLF, Mr. YOUNG of Alaska, and Mr. UPTON) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce


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


A BILL
To prevent the Federal Communications Commission from repromulgating the fairness doctrine.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,


SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Broadcaster Freedom Act of 2007'.


SEC. 2. FAIRNESS DOCTRINE PROHIBITED.

Title III of the Communications Act of 1934 is amended by inserting after section 303 (47 U.S.C. 303) the following new section:


`SEC. 303A. LIMITATION ON GENERAL POWERS: FAIRNESS DOCTRINE.

`Notwithstanding section 303 or any other provision of this Act or any other Act authorizing the Commission to prescribe rules, regulations, policies, doctrines, standards, or other requirements, the Commission shall not have the authority to prescribe any rule, regulation, policy, doctrine, standard, or other requirement that has the purpose or effect of reinstating or repromulgating (in whole or in part) the requirement that broadcasters present opposing viewpoints on controversial issues of public importance, commonly referred to as the `Fairness Doctrine', as repealed in General Fairness Doctrine Obligations of Broadcast Licensees, 50 Fed. Reg. 35418 (1985).'.
______

Opposing viewpoints! How terrible! The 1st Amendment is teh dead.

HonestChieffan
07-27-2008, 01:28 PM
No Hooey at all on her rules and what she want to impose on the members of congress. The fact is she and her little band of zealots have been on the fairness doctrine bandwagon for over a year...and in two minutes you made that all go away?

HonestChieffan
07-27-2008, 01:30 PM
Why the Fairness Doctrine is Anything But Fair
by Adam Thierer
Executive Memorandum #368
This key research from 1993 has been updated in James Gattuso's new paper "Back to Muzak? Congress and the Un-Fairness Doctrine" http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/wm1472.cfm


Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." The legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993," is sponsored in the Senate (S. 333) by Ernest Hollings, the South Carolina Democrat, and in the House (H.R. 1985) by Bill Hefner, the North Carolina Democrat. It would codify a 1949 Federal Communications Commission (FCC) regulation that once required broadcasters to "afford reasonable opportunity for the discussion of conflicting views of public importance." The fairness doctrine was overturned by the FCC in 1987. The FCC discarded the rule because, contrary to its purpose, it failed to encourage the discussion of more controversial issues. There were also concerns that it was in violation of First Amendment free speech principles. The legislation now before Congress would enshrine the fairness doctrine into law.

The doctrine's supporters seem not to appreciate just how much the broadcast world has changed since 1949. With the proliferation of informational resources and technology, the number of broadcast outlets available to the public has increased steadily. In such an environment, it is hard to understand why the federal government must police the airwaves to ensure that differing views are heard. The result of a reinstituted fairness doctrine would not be fair at all. In practice, much controversial speech heard today would be stifled as the threat of random investigations and warnings discouraged broadcasters from airing what FCC bureaucrats might refer to as "unbalanced" views.

Tested in Court
The fairness doctrine's constitutionality was tested and upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court in a landmark 1969 case, Red Lion Broadcasting v. FCC (395 U.S. 367). Although the Court then ruled that it did not violate a broadcaster's First Amendment rights, the Court cautioned that if the doctrine ever began to restrain speech, then the rule's constitutionality should be reconsidered. Just five years later, without ruling the doctrine unconstitutional, the Court concluded in another case that the doctrine "inescapably dampens the vigor and limits the variety of public debate" (Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241). In 1984, the Court concluded that the scarcity rationale underlying the doctrine was flawed and that the doctrine was limiting the breadth of public debate (FCC v. League of Women Voters, 468 U.S. 364). This ruling set the stage for the FCC's action in 1987. An attempt by Congress to reinstate the rule by statute was vetoed by President Ronald Reagan in 1987, and later attempts failed even to pass Congress.

As an independent regulatory agency, the FCC has the power to reimpose the doctrine without congressional or executive action. So far, the Commission has taken no position on the Hollings-Hefner legislation or expressed an interest in reregulating on its own. Current FCC Chairman James Quello, though, has stated that, "The fairness doctrine doesn't belong in a country that's dedicated to freedom of the press and freedom of speech." (Doug Halonen, "Twelve to Watch in 1993," Electronic Media, January 25, 1993, p. 66.) The Clinton Administration has not taken an official position on the legislation.

Supporters of reviving the fairness doctrine base their argument on the very same three faulty premises that the FCC and most judicial rulings have rejected.

Faulty Premise #1: The "scarce" amount of spectrum space requires oversight by federal regulators.

Reality: Although the spectrum is limited, the number of broadcasters in America has continuously increased.

Supporters of the fairness doctrine argue that because the airwaves are a scarce resource, they should be policed by federal bureaucrats to ensure that all viewpoints are heard. Yet, just because the spectrum within which broadcast frequencies are found has boundaries, it does not mean that there is a practical shortage of views being heard over the airwaves. When the fairness doctrine was first conceived, only 2,881 radio and 98 television stations existed. By 1960, there were 4,309 radio and 569 television stations. By 1989, these numbers grew to over 10,000 radio stations and close to 1,400 television stations. Likewise, the number of radios in use jumped from 85.2 million in 1950 to 527.4 million by 1988, and televisions in use went from 4 million to 175.5 million during that period. ("The Fairness Doctrine," National Association of Broadcasters, Backgrounder (1989).)

Even if it may once have been possible to monopolize the airwaves, and to deny access to certain viewpoints, that is impossible today. A wide variety of opinions is available to the public through radios, cable channels, and even computers. With America on the verge of information superhighways and 500-channel televisions, there is little prospect of speech being stifled.

Faulty Premise #2: "Fairness" or "fair access" is best determined by FCC authorities.

Reality: FCC bureaucrats can neither determine what is "fair" nor enforce it.

The second fallacy upon which the doctrine rests concerns the idea of "fairness" itself. As defined by proponents of the doctrine, "fairness" apparently means that each broadcaster must offer air time to anyone with a controversial view. Since it is impossible for every station to be monitored constantly, FCC regulators would arbitrarily determine what "fair access" is, and who is entitled to it, through selective enforcement. This, of course, puts immense power into the hands of federal regulators. And in fact, the fairness doctrine was used by both the Kennedy and Nixon Administrations to limit political opposition. Telecommunications scholar Thomas W. Hazlett notes that under the Nixon Administration, "License harassment of stations considered unfriendly to the Administration became a regular item on the agenda at White House policy meetings." (Thomas W. Hazlett, "The Fairness Doctrine and the First Amendment," The Public Interest, Summer 1989, p. 105.) As one former Kennedy Administration official, Bill Ruder, has said, "We had a massive strategy to use the fairness doctrine to challenge and harass the right-wing broadcasters, and hope the challenge would be so costly to them that they would be inhibited and decide it was too expensive to continue." (Tony Snow, "Return of the Fairness Demon," The Washington Times, September 5, 1993, p. B3.)

Faulty Premise #3: The fairness doctrine guarantees that more opinions will be aired.

Reality: Arbitrary enforcement of the fairness doctrine will diminish vigorous debate.

Of all arguments for the reinstitution of the fairness doctrine, the most inaccurate and insidious is that it will permit a greater diversity of opinion to be heard. By requiring, under threat of arbitrary legal penalty, that broadcasters "fairly" represent both sides of a given issue, advocates of the doctrine believe that more views will be aired while the editorial content of the station can remain unaltered. But with the threat of potential FCC retaliation for perceived lack of compliance, most broadcasters would be more reluctant to air their own opinions because it might require them to air alternative perspectives that their audience does not want to hear.

Thus, the result of the fairness doctrine in many cases would be to stifle the growth of disseminating views and, in effect, make free speech less free. This is exactly what led the FCC to repeal the rule in 1987. FCC officials found that the doctrine "had the net effect of reducing, rather than enhancing, the discussion of controversial issues of public importance," and therefore was in violation of constitutional principles. ("FCC Ends Enforcement of Fairness Doctrine," Federal Communications Commission News, Report No. MM-263, August 4, 1987.) Even liberal New York Governor Mario Cuomo has argued that, "Precisely because radio and TV have become our principal sources of news and information, we should accord broadcasters the utmost freedom in order to insure a truly free press." (Mario Cuomo, "The Unfairness Doctrine," The New York Times, September 20, 1993, p. A19.)

Simple Solution
If the fairness standard is reinstituted, the result will not be easier access for controversial views. It will instead be self-censorship, as stations seek to avoid requirements that they broadcast specific opposing views. With the wide diversity of views available today in the expanding broadcast system, there is a simple solution for any family seeking an alternative viewpoint or for any lawmaker irritated by a pugnacious talk-show host. Turn the dial.

http://www.heritage.org/Research/Regulation/EM368.cfm

banyon
07-27-2008, 01:30 PM
No Hooey at all on her rules and what she want to impose on the members of congress. The fact is she and her little band of zealots have been on the fairness doctrine bandwagon for over a year...and in two minutes you made that all go away?


Damn zealots wanting opposing viewpoints to be presented. LET US ONLY HEAR ONE SIDE O CORPORATE MASTERS!!!

***SPRAYER
07-27-2008, 01:30 PM
No Hooey at all on her rules and what she want to impose on the members of congress. The fact is she and her little band of zealots have been on the fairness doctrine bandwagon for over a year...and in two minutes you made that all go away?


FCC Commissioners are appointed by the president. If B.O. gets in the white house, all he has to do is appoint one or two who will reinstate the fairness doctrine. It's that simple.

banyon
07-27-2008, 01:31 PM
I'm not sure a 15 year old story is very relevant to this debate either.

***SPRAYER
07-27-2008, 01:32 PM
Damn zealots wanting opposing viewpoints to be presented. LET US ONLY HEAR ONE SIDE O CORPORATE MASTERS!!!

They don't have their opposing viewpoints presented? Not even in the NY Times? NBC?

HonestChieffan
07-27-2008, 01:32 PM
Damn zealots wanting opposing viewpoints to be presented. LET US ONLY HEAR ONE SIDE O CORPORATE MASTERS!!!

The opposing viewpoints have every opportunity to go on the radio, TV, newspapers, magazines. WTF are you talking about

HonestChieffan
07-27-2008, 01:34 PM
I'm not sure a 15 year old story is very relevant to this debate either.

Of course you dont. But then in this case that silly old constitution is even older and probably less relevant to the leftists.

Adept Havelock
07-27-2008, 01:41 PM
I'm not sure a 15 year old story is very relevant to this debate either.

Meh, like I said..the "Fairness Doctrine" rhetoric is to the fringe left as the "Ban Abortion" rhetoric is the the RTL crowd for the GOP.

Both sides will throw around a lot of empty rhetoric, but nothing much ever seems to get done about it.

Even if the FCC does "reactivate it", it'll be struck down by the Supreme Court just like it was in '84. The "scarcity rationale", which did exist when it was enacted in response to the "Red Scare" back in '49, applies even less today.

That's why there has been no legislative effort to restore it in over 15 years.

However, you can always count on people to "Chicken Little" about it.

Nothing like "The Sky is Falling" to try to work folks up, whether you are talking about the Fairness Doctrine, or banning abortion completely. It's all the same noise during an election year. ;)

banyon
07-27-2008, 01:42 PM
The opposing viewpoints have every opportunity to go on the radio, TV, newspapers, magazines. WTF are you talking about

Sure:

On the major evening newscasts on ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS, FAIR found 393 interviews on the issue of war, of which only three were with antiwar leaders. This when a majority in the U.S. either opposed war or supported more time for inspections. This is not a mainstream media, but an extreme media, beating the drums for war.

http://www.alternet.org/waroniraq/52665/

banyon
07-27-2008, 01:45 PM
Of course you dont. But then in this case that silly old constitution is even older and probably less relevant to the leftists.

When you refer to our nation's organizing document, capitalize it. Constitution.

When you flap your gums about it, though, feel free to take a literal reading where you want to and make shit up where needed.

And when your article starts out:

"Legislation currently is before Congress that would reinstate a federal communications policy known as the "fairness doctrine." The legislation, entitled the "Fairness in Broadcasting Act of 1993,",

don't be surprised if people don't bother to read the tripe you've cut and pasted.

HonestChieffan
07-27-2008, 02:03 PM
Lord you are off the chart today. So this issue has been declared by you not an issue. Please let congress know they need not waste any more time on it. Also can you contact the networks? The should be thrilled!!

Adept Havelock
07-27-2008, 02:04 PM
Lord you are off the chart today. So this issue has been declared by you not an issue. Please let congress know they need not waste any more time on it. Also can you contact the networks? The should be thrilled!!

What is congress currently doing about it? What bills have been offered to restore it since 1993?

If it's the grave threat you are pretending it is, it should be easy to provide the bill numbers.

I'm not talking about empty rhetoric in favor of it. I'm talking about concrete, legislative steps to bring it back.

Perhaps you could also explain how it could be restored in light of it being struck down by the SC in '84, by a more liberal SC than we have today?

Then again, you could just continue to squawk about how the sky is falling.

That would be more in keeping with your style. ;)

banyon
07-27-2008, 03:01 PM
Lord you are off the chart today. So this issue has been declared by you not an issue. Please let congress know they need not waste any more time on it. Also can you contact the networks? The should be thrilled!!

You haven't posted anything showing Congress has "wasted their tme on it" other than in the Committee where your dude's tiny bill wasn't approved.

Mosbonian
07-27-2008, 11:20 PM
In some cases, but there were enough "like minded idiots" to push him over the top, IMO.

However, I do agree that the Democratic Party's offerings were also weak. I'm far from convinced "Bush was the lesser of two evils", as I see little to recommend either of them.

I am saying it as a moderate Conservative Republican.....had the Democratic Party offered a candidate that would have been better than Bush43, I would have been pulling a different lever in the booth. And I can be damn sure I am not the only one....

And before anyone blasts me, I measured all the the candidates offered in what I believe in. Unfortunately the checklist fell more on the Bush side than the Kerry side.

mmaddog
*******

Guru
07-27-2008, 11:25 PM
what do you want she's from the people republic of Kalifornia :shrug:

where the hell is Zorro when you need him?