Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format
Celtic Radio Community > Politics & Current Events > Fairness Docterine Coming Back


Posted by: Patch 19-Feb-2009, 04:50 PM
It appears to be the plan to regulate "fairness" in ALL media forms including the "net". I just got this from the Center for Individual Freedom. It has yet to be posted to their web page which is www.cfif.org

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Dogshirt 19-Feb-2009, 09:36 PM
What is FAIR about the media? It's so far left wing that it can't even SEE themiddle of the road! censored.gif evil.gif fyou.gif mad2.gif pooh.gif puke.gif


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: gwenlee 20-Feb-2009, 06:11 AM
The Fairness Doctrine is nothing more than censorship. I thought the left wingers were against censorship. Humm... What makes the supporter of the Fairness Doctorine think that people are going to listen to the opposing views? Here again we have a bunch of people who think that the government knows what is best for the people. Are these supportor afraid of something?

Posted by: Patch 20-Feb-2009, 07:22 AM
I think the plan is to create rules that make it extremely hard for the conservative talk show hosts to find a venue to broadcast through. They want to quiet the opposition. I see things being done that can only put down the opposition. It is their desire to stay in power in perpetuity. Both major parties have that desire to one degree or another. They are afraid of loosing power as, in power there is personal financial gain.

It is quite a system our political parasites have developed over the years.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Camac 20-Feb-2009, 09:29 AM
Patch;

I have watched on the rare occassion these Conservative Radio Talk Show Hosts and I have personally got tyhe feeling that some of them are borderline Fascist. Scare the ----- out of me.



Camac.

Posted by: mainopsman 20-Feb-2009, 10:09 AM
What ever happened to "Freedom of Speech"? It seems if only works for the left, anyone else doesn't have the right to disagree. What are they afraid of the? The truth??

JIM

Posted by: Camac 20-Feb-2009, 10:40 AM
mainopsman;

I for one am all for Free Speech and am not afraid of the truth. However I do not like extremes. Like the majority of Canadians I am Centrist. A little Conservatism a little Liberalism but let's keep it balanced.



Camac.

Posted by: Patch 20-Feb-2009, 12:01 PM
Unfortunately both of our main political parties are radical. The populace should be afraid of both.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: gwenlee 20-Feb-2009, 01:44 PM
Whether we like what is being said or not there is a freedom of speech/press in this country. No one can make me listen to something if I don't want to. The people in control want to put in place a form of censorship. If they pass this places like Highlander radio will be next. There will be some one monitoring our political forum and then watch out!! They will then shut us down, or worse yet come look for those of us that don't reflect their views. If we keep giving up our freedoms for security or fairness we will soon have no freedom.

Posted by: Antwn 20-Feb-2009, 03:40 PM
Well, according to this Wikipedia article, Obama is against adopting the Fairness Doctrine as law, so its likely to be vetoed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

Posted by: gwenlee 20-Feb-2009, 04:46 PM
QUOTE (Antwn @ 20-Feb-2009, 05:40 PM)
Well, according to this Wikipedia article, Obama is against adopting the Fairness Doctrine as law, so its likely to be vetoed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

I hope so.

Posted by: MacEoghainn 20-Feb-2009, 05:47 PM
This whole rigmarole about the Fairness Doctrine is a "red herring" designed to draw our attention away from the lefts real plan to slowly increase their control of the media via a number of small changes in the law (which they'll call "common sense improvements").

Posted by: Nova Scotian 20-Feb-2009, 07:40 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 20-Feb-2009, 10:29 AM)
Patch;

I have watched on the rare occassion these Conservative Radio Talk Show Hosts and I have personally got tyhe feeling that some of them are borderline Fascist. Scare the ----- out of me.



Camac.

And the left wingers are not? unsure.gif

Posted by: englishmix 21-Feb-2009, 01:09 AM
A fascist is one who uses the governing polity and laws only for ones advantage to gain power, but acts without regard to the law and polity - trods them under foot - once one has power. More specifically:

"A form of political behavior marked by obsessive preoccupation with community decline, humiliation or victimhood and by compensatory cults of unity, energy and purity, in which a mass-based party of committed nationalist militants, working in uneasy but effective collaboration with traditional elites, abandons democratic liberties and pursues with redemptive violence and without ethical or legal restraints goals of internal cleansing and external expansion." [Robert O. Paxton, "The Anatomy of Fascism," 2004]

Now who fits these nickers? I do not know how any syndicated conservative radio types in the USA could possibly be considered a fascist. But as time progresses, President Obama and congress do seem to have an increasing number of striking similarities...

Posted by: Camac 21-Feb-2009, 08:13 AM
englishmix;

I did not say that they were all borderline Fascist. I said " I got the feeling that some were" I have no truck with extremism be it religious, political, or social. To some of these ultra-conservatives, liberalism equates to socialism equates to communism. I have said it before and I say it again liberalism is not a swear word nor is socialism. I think you will find that most of your allies and friends have a form of social democracy in place. Not extreme socialism but a moderate form such as we have. After all one of your Presidents said something to the effect that if your neighbours house is on fire you help by lending him your garden hose. What I see is far to much influence from your so called religious right who I believe would rather see a Theocracy than a Democracy.



Camac.


"Until God is removed from politics there can be no peace" (unknown)

Posted by: Patch 21-Feb-2009, 08:27 AM
Unchecked printing of Marks and uncontrolled inflation put A. Hitler and the Nazi party in power. More recently, in Venezuela, rampant inflation has brought outcries against the Jewish community and probably caused the vote that has made it possible for H. Chavez to run for office in perpetuity.

It could happen here too. It would take a constitutional amendment but as J. Stalin said, " It is not those who vote that decide elections, it is those who count the votes!!"

Love your country but be very afraid of your government!

Slàinte,    

Patch    


Posted by: MacEoghainn 21-Feb-2009, 11:00 AM
QUOTE (Patch @ 21-Feb-2009, 09:27 AM)
.......Love your country but be very afraid of your government!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

The opposite of that statement is what keeps a government in line. The government (especially politicians) needs to be very afraid of its citizens! That is the ultimate purpose of the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and the reason the Left in this country (aided by their "sheeple" allies in the press and such organizations as the Brady Campaign) continues their efforts to curtail or abolish our right of self defense guaranteed by the Constitution!


"An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject." Unknown

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." Thomas Jefferson

Posted by: englishmix 21-Feb-2009, 11:31 PM
Hey Camac, thanks for the reply and thoughts. Please be assured that what I had said had no intent of trying to jab you specifically, as I was responding only to the point.

What I am all for is liberty and love, such as free-will charity; but I am very very guarded against a socialistic "do-gooder" government - especially one hell-bent on redressing perceived "wrongs" and "injustices" it thinks it sees.

Charity is like when my neighbors house is on fire (to use that analogy) that I willingly yield my water hose and myself to aid my neighbor in need. The socialism in government threatening over here is where my government forbids me to help my neighbor, because their organized bureacracy of 1st responders is alone qualified to handle it - and besides the government already confiscated my waterhose for its own "charitable" purposes, so I am left bereft to help even if I wanted to... This kind of insanity is what I am against, and there is plenty of examples of it being express by the "do-gooders" in our current congress of morons.

You also used a loaded phrase coined by our media "elite" over here, ie "the religious right", and I'm not sure want you meant by that. From my experience and viewpoint, it is the "religious wrong" that are causing a lot of mayhem... Many religious people do address social issues over here (sodomy, baby-killing, euthanasia, addictive drugs, prostitution, slavery, etc ) in the political arena on platforms of religious doctrine - which is really overboard. For logic, science, justice and common humanity can really resolve these issues correctly.

But the government here does not support any religion, nor can it. They do not take our taxes to support religions or religious institutions, nor is there any movement to require everyone to attend catechism class or take the Sacrament once a year... We just have a traditional government that wants to tax the hell out of us and so make us dependent on their discrimnatory "refunds" and "entitlements". But now they are threatening to take over private businesses... I say its high time for a gathering of the clans...

Posted by: Camac 22-Feb-2009, 02:03 PM
englishmix;
I see no intended jab but if there were I hope I am wise enough after all this time of accepting it with good humour. I rarely get upset over what people think or say of me or my ramblings.

If I may though I would like to zero in on the specific of "Religious Right' or perhaps the term Christian Coalition. It is my opinion that you Americans put way to much emphasis on "GOD" If a politician up here started spouting out about God and religion he would be chucked out damn quickly. If it was also discovered that if he was being unduly influenced by his religious beliefs in representing his constituents, , bye-bye. We just don't play the God card. It is, as the Germans say "Verboten" in politics. We don't have slogans such as "In God We Trust" nor do our politicians say "God Bless Canada" at the end of a speech. Damn quick way to end a political career. Religion belongs in the Churches, Synagogues, and Mosques not in Politics. Now with that stated I do have a moral code and strong beliefs in certain areas, I do not agree with abortion for abortion sake, in the case of rape or incest yes. I do believe that I should have the right to choose when and how I die. I also believe in mercy killing from a personal experience. I definitely do not agree with Censorship or the banning or burning of books. Been to much of that in the past and it's retarded the growth of the Human Spirit. Finally as to rampant Nationalization it doesn't work causes more headaches than what its worth.


Camac.

Posted by: Antwn 22-Feb-2009, 04:23 PM
QUOTE (englishmix @ 22-Feb-2009, 12:31 AM)
But the government here does not support any religion, nor can it.  They do not take our taxes to support religions or religious institutions,  [/i]

.....with the exception of Bush's faith based initiative which Obama wants to continue. That program takes tax dollars to support religious institutions, and however well intentioned the activities of those institutions are, the river of dollars still flows from our wallets through the channels of government and into their collection plates, and they're not turning it away out of any church and state separation principle. So anyone against such collaborations pays taxes to support a religious institution with no foreknowlege of what level of prosthelytising goes on in the process of providing social services. As far as principle goes, its a violation no amount of altruism alters, and to those who'd argue charitable good works trump principle, I'd remind you that taxpayer's involuntary support is not necessary for charitable viability. Its a straw man argument. Let charitable religious institutions support themselves by donations as they always have.


Posted by: oldraven 23-Feb-2009, 01:11 PM
QUOTE (Nova Scotian @ 20-Feb-2009, 06:40 PM)
QUOTE (Camac @ 20-Feb-2009, 10:29 AM)
Patch;

I have watched on the rare occassion these Conservative Radio Talk Show Hosts and I have personally got tyhe feeling that some of them are borderline Fascist. Scare the ----- out of me.



Camac.

And the left wingers are not? unsure.gif

A person should be wary of any extremist view. Left or Right. I've yet to be outright shocked by a Liberal pundit, though. I've thought they were morons plenty of times, but never have they actually made me afraid. Maybe it's because the left uses the semblance of progressivism, even when they talk about progressing into something undesirable, where the right uses outright fear to sway the listener.

I'm with Camac. We need a little bit of both to create a well cultured and balanced society.

Posted by: macewen 23-Feb-2009, 01:20 PM
QUOTE (mainopsman @ 20-Feb-2009, 06:09 AM)
What ever happened to "Freedom of Speech"?  It seems if only works for the left, anyone else doesn't have the right to disagree.  What are they afraid of the?  The truth??

    JIM

YES that's exactly what they're afraid of, the truth.
LEFTIES are the most hypocritical, intolerant bunch of so-called politically correct morons who somehow got control of OUR government. I know, I am married to a Lib and have a lot of 'former friends' who are liberals and think Obama and Pelosi and Reid are just great.
They are treasonous traitors to someone like me, a tenth generation American Scot whose ancestors fought in the War for Independence. Radical leftists like Obama have planned since the 60's to infiltrate our schools, take over our government. This PLAN for America as Rahm Emanuel calls it, has been long in the making.
There is talk nationwide of a new Revolution and I will not be surprised. Obama and his cabinet and Congress are dessicrating our Constitution and freedoms and what America was designed to be, according to the Founding Fathers.
Starting by silencing us. mad.gif unclesam.gif

Posted by: oldraven 23-Feb-2009, 01:29 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 22-Feb-2009, 1:03 PM)
...Nationalization...


QUOTE (Antwn @ 22-Feb-2009, 3:23 PM)
...prosthelytising...


I just got a chuckle from that. The Canadian spelling it the American way and the American spelling it the Canadian way (well, with regard to the 'z' and 's').

Posted by: oldraven 23-Feb-2009, 01:40 PM
QUOTE (macewen @ 23-Feb-2009, 12:20 PM)
QUOTE (mainopsman @ 20-Feb-2009, 06:09 AM)
What ever happened to "Freedom of Speech"?  It seems if only works for the left, anyone else doesn't have the right to disagree.  What are they afraid of the?  The truth??

    JIM

YES that's exactly what they're afraid of, the truth.
LEFTIES are the most hypocritical, intolerant bunch of so-called politically correct morons who somehow got control of OUR government. I know, I am married to a Lib and have a lot of 'former friends' who are liberals and think Obama and Pelosi and Reid are just great.
They are treasonous traitors to someone like me, a tenth generation American Scot whose ancestors fought in the War for Independence. Radical leftists like Obama have planned since the 60's to infiltrate our schools, take over our government. This PLAN for America as Rahm Emanuel calls it, has been long in the making.
There is talk nationwide of a new Revolution and I will not be surprised. Obama and his cabinet and Congress are dessicrating our Constitution and freedoms and what America was designed to be, according to the Founding Fathers.
Starting by silencing us. mad.gif unclesam.gif

Dude, there are a number of very level headed left leaning people on this board. You might want to stop calling us things like "hypocritical, intolerant, morons, treasonous traitors." You won't make many friends that way and you're epitomising the extremist conservatism that Camac was referring to in the first place.

And since you brought it up, do you think restrictions on citizens and the way they freely live their lives started with Obama? Is this the point where rights and freedoms began to change? If so, where have you been for the last better part of a decade? The four words "Matter of National Security" have negated human rights in the US and Canada more than any others I can think of. That goes for the insinuation from Patch that rapid inflation through the printing of money and thus the dilution of the US dollar started with Obama. You're taking two courses of action that were severely accelerated by the previous government and lay the blame on the new guy who inherited it.

Posted by: Camac 23-Feb-2009, 01:54 PM
oldraven; Look it up in A Canadian Dictionary it is Spelt NATIONALIZATION.


Camac.

Posted by: macewen 23-Feb-2009, 02:26 PM
QUOTE (oldraven @ 23-Feb-2009, 09:40 AM)

Dude, there are a number of very level headed left leaning people on this board. You might want to stop calling us things like "hypocritical, intolerant, morons, treasonous traitors." You won't make many friends that way and you're epitomising the extremist conservatism that Camac was referring to in the first place.

And since you brought it up, do you think restrictions on citizens and the way they freely live their lives started with Obama? Is this the point where rights and freedoms began to change? If so, where have you been for the last better part of a decade? The four words "Matter of National Security" have negated human rights in the US and Canada more than any others I can think of. That goes for the insinuation from Patch that rapid inflation through the printing of money and thus the dilution of the US dollar started with Obama. You're taking two courses of action that were severely accelerated by the previous government and lay the blame on the new guy who inherited it.

#1 YOU called ME a troll on another post because I expressed My opinon about that ridiculous Obama song and the fact that too many people worship the man; My politics are NOT 'far right' but Constitutional. ALso you disputed my belief that Obama is a usurper of office of President-- he has refused, still, and despite myriad lawsuits, to show a real birth certificate, a passport, college records, medical records etc. There was an Agenda by the DNC to get him into office and the media colluded by assasinating the character of all his opponents.
YOU need to know that in addition to the 56 Million citizens who did NOT vote for him, there are many getting voters remorse now who did vote for him.
The media malpractice was an agenda, go to www.howobamagotelected.com and see what I mean.
#2 I am not here to necessarily make friends, I came here for the music, and I was referring to the Leftists who do intend to follow along with Obama to as he put it: "fundamentally transform America." YES I do consider that traitorous. Are you a socialist or are you a patriot when it comes to the founding principles of MY country?
#3 How can you compare what he is up to re the Fairness Doctrine with any rights lost by Americans as you put it, in the last ten years? You are kidding right? Since 9-11 thanks to Bush, we have NOT had another attack of the magnitude on US soil.
BUT BIDEN promised us something would 'happen' within six months of Obama taking office. WHAT the HELL does that mean exactly?
I have lost no rights whatsoever, until NOW that is. For the last 8 years I and my family have been doing fine, working, paying our bills. Now we face insane tax increases, paying the mortgages of losers, being censored, seeing our tax dollars pay for abortions here and worldwide. Etc.
Bottom line you call ME an extremist because I STAND by the Constitution and Limited Government? You have got to be kidding.

Posted by: oldraven 23-Feb-2009, 02:56 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Feb-2009, 12:54 PM)
oldraven; Look it up in A Canadian Dictionary it is Spelt NATIONALIZATION.


Camac.

OK. I know the equally embarrassing Canadian English Dictionary is very Americanised, but since when did we adopt the 'z' in this instance? The word 'Nationalisation' is definitely the UK English spelling, but I found it spelled that way here as well. Damn I hate the Americanisation of our language. We have rules even in Canadian English, and the use of an 's' in cases like this is proper. Or at least I always thought it was. Is my literary world about to collapse? sad.gif

http://dictionary.canadaspace.com/definition/nationalisation/

Yes, I know. This is incredibly off topic. angel_not.gif

Posted by: Camac 23-Feb-2009, 03:26 PM
oldraven

I just looked it up in my Oxford English Dictionary and they also spell it with a zed. Iknow what you mean about the Americanization of our language. Blame it on TV and Hollywood. Yeah this is off topic but what the Hey.


Camac.

Posted by: gwenlee 23-Feb-2009, 03:41 PM
I see the extreme left as passive aggressive and the extreme right as in your face. Either way both are trying to get their way. I am angry too with the way this country has gone forgetting the basic on which we were founded. I don't like the idea that there are a group of people in our government that think we are going to sit back and let them dictate what we listen to. If I don't want to listen to a liberal or a right winger I shouldn't be made to. I also don't think I should have to bail out every Tom, Dick and Harry because they made bad finical choices. Heck I've made my mistakes and I have had to crawl out of them. No one gave me a hand out. My gosh we are the United States of America we are the results of failure and success and I like that. If I wanted a womb to the tomb society I'd live in one. Less government interference is better. Our government thinks that they can fix the broken finance? HA, look at what they have done to our Social Security system.

Posted by: oldraven 23-Feb-2009, 05:51 PM
QUOTE (macewen @ 23-Feb-2009, 01:26 PM)
QUOTE (oldraven @ 23-Feb-2009, 09:40 AM)

Dude, there are a number of very level headed left leaning people on this board. You might want to stop calling us things like "hypocritical, intolerant, morons, treasonous traitors." You won't make many friends that way and you're epitomising the extremist conservatism that Camac was referring to in the first place.

And since you brought it up, do you think restrictions on citizens and the way they freely live their lives started with Obama? Is this the point where rights and freedoms began to change? If so, where have you been for the last better part of a decade? The four words "Matter of National Security" have negated human rights in the US and Canada more than any others I can think of. That goes for the insinuation from Patch that rapid inflation through the printing of money and thus the dilution of the US dollar started with Obama. You're taking two courses of action that were severely accelerated by the previous government and lay the blame on the new guy who inherited it.

#1 YOU called ME a troll on another post because I expressed My opinon about that ridiculous Obama song and the fact that too many people worship the man; My politics are NOT 'far right' but Constitutional. ALso you disputed my belief that Obama is a usurper of office of President-- he has refused, still, and despite myriad lawsuits, to show a real birth certificate, a passport, college records, medical records etc. There was an Agenda by the DNC to get him into office and the media colluded by assasinating the character of all his opponents.
YOU need to know that in addition to the 56 Million citizens who did NOT vote for him, there are many getting voters remorse now who did vote for him.
The media malpractice was an agenda, go to www.howobamagotelected.com and see what I mean.
#2 I am not here to necessarily make friends, I came here for the music, and I was referring to the Leftists who do intend to follow along with Obama to as he put it: "fundamentally transform America." YES I do consider that traitorous. Are you a socialist or are you a patriot when it comes to the founding principles of MY country?
#3 How can you compare what he is up to re the Fairness Doctrine with any rights lost by Americans as you put it, in the last ten years? You are kidding right? Since 9-11 thanks to Bush, we have NOT had another attack of the magnitude on US soil.
BUT BIDEN promised us something would 'happen' within six months of Obama taking office. WHAT the HELL does that mean exactly?
I have lost no rights whatsoever, until NOW that is. For the last 8 years I and my family have been doing fine, working, paying our bills. Now we face insane tax increases, paying the mortgages of losers, being censored, seeing our tax dollars pay for abortions here and worldwide. Etc.
Bottom line you call ME an extremist because I STAND by the Constitution and Limited Government? You have got to be kidding.

OK, calling someone a troll on a message board has a different meaning than you might think. It's not a personal insult. I'm not saying you look or act like an actual troll in the fantastical sense. It means someone who enters a forum or posts for the chief purpose of causing trouble. Filling your first five posts with broad insults to many of the established members here puts you right in the sweet spot of that definition. We all have fairly differing views on this board, and especially here in the politics forum, yet we do our best to keep our posts clean and avoid making personal attacks. When you join a message board, the best thing you can do is lurk for awhile to see what kind of people you're talking to and how they converse. You came barrelling in with guns blazing and are surprised that struck a chord?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forum_troll

And to prove the point that we avoid taking things to the personal level here, I'll offer my apology for the mixup on the use of the term troll. I should remember that these terms aren't known by everyone on the net. There was a time where even the moderators here were calling themselves trolls, which was not a good thing. I think once they realised what that meant they let the moniker drop.

As for the rest, I addressed much of that in the other thread. He's not a usurper.

Posted by: Camac 23-Feb-2009, 06:37 PM
oldraven :

In macewans' retort I believe something was mentioned about "standing by the Constitution and Limited Government" well I think we can see where that has landed them in the past 8 years. Limited government means less regulation means Banking crisis means Mortgage crisis. Hell Bush and Company might as well have given the Mortgage Companies and the Banks the keys to Fort Knox. Oh wait a minute they did.

Camac.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 23-Feb-2009, 07:09 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Feb-2009, 07:37 PM)
oldraven :

In macewans' retort I believe something was mentioned about "standing by the Constitution and Limited Government" well I think we can see where that has landed them in the past 8 years. Limited government means less regulation means Banking crisis means Mortgage crisis. Hell Bush and Company might as well have given the Mortgage Companies and the Banks the keys to Fort Knox. Oh wait a minute they did.

Camac.

So you're saying that the banking crisis is from limited government and all from the last 8 years and nothing else?

Posted by: Patch 23-Feb-2009, 07:37 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 23-Feb-2009, 08:37 PM)
oldraven :

In macewans' retort I believe something was mentioned about "standing by the Constitution and Limited Government" well I think we can see where that has landed them in the past 8 years. Limited government means less regulation means Banking crisis means Mortgage crisis. Hell Bush and Company might as well have given the Mortgage Companies and the Banks the keys to Fort Knox. Oh wait a minute they did.

Camac.

Our problem is that neither party has stood by the Constitution for a long time and government has not been limited for much longer. The mortgage and more importantly stock market controls started coming off under Clinton and bush opened everything up! It is not conservatism or liberalism that caused the problem, it is a lust for power and a case of unbridled greed. Also a total disregard for the welfare of ones fellow human beings. The welfare of many has been destroyed by the actions of a few from both political parties. The run on Money Market Funds last October that started this slide was caused , not just by our enemies who were invested in the funds but by our "friends" also. They still have money invested here and abroad which should be cause for extreme worry. Europe is approximately three times deeper into bad mortgages than the US and failure of any major country will take us all down. That is a benefit of globalization!

The fairness doctrine is just a small blip in the course that the US may or may not take. Unfortunately, neither party has the answer, nor does any country.

The will of the people will still prevail. Contact your reps and senators.

Slàinte,   

 Patch    


Posted by: Antwn 23-Feb-2009, 08:42 PM
Before anyone imagines that your freedoms are about to be stolen, let me reiterate that Obama is against making the fairness doctrine into law and that he has veto power. Why not worry about the imminent demise of freedom when that event has a reasonable probability to occur.

Secondly, what Obama is in favor of is summarized as follows from the White House website:

"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 nation's spectrum."

Considering the US mainstream media is currently owned by very few companies, wouldn't the encouragement of diversity of ownership allow for more diversity in the bias spectrum? The market decides the success or failure of any new media venture, however the fewer the owners the less diverse the choices and the public is stuck with a surprisingly low level of quality and diversity of perspective. How is freedom thus served?

Although vague, the paragraph above encourages diversity of ownership, and to encourage is not necessarily to mandate. To encourage "diverse viewpoints" is the exact opposite of proscribing, or limiting the public's exposure to specific viewpoints. Yes, the language used could be politic-speak for assuring a greater market share for sympathetic views, but then the market decides who thrives or dives, and no one can regulate popularity. Compare the popularity of Rush Limbaugh's show to Al Franken's if you need an example. No one legislated Limbaugh's popularity, nor will they do so for Franken.




Posted by: Camac 24-Feb-2009, 08:05 AM
Nova Scotian;

I'm not saying that they were the only factors involved but they sure exacerbated the situation. The very fact that your cousins to the North have the strongest Banking System in the World, thanks to regulatory controls, and is now the model of how it can be done should say something. There is no "Bail Out" of financial institutions here nor do we have the Mortgage fiasco like you have.


Camac.

Posted by: gwenlee 24-Feb-2009, 04:03 PM
Just a quick thought before I go to work so I can pay my fair share. Liberal and conservatives took advantage of this whole financial situation. I just heard how our leader took advantage of a special price and interest rate on his home. All of these folks got their hands caught in the cookie jar.

Posted by: Nova Scotian 25-Feb-2009, 08:51 AM
QUOTE (Camac @ 24-Feb-2009, 09:05 AM)
Nova Scotian;

I'm not saying that they were the only factors involved but they sure exacerbated the situation. The very fact that your cousins to the North have the strongest Banking System in the World, thanks to regulatory controls, and is now the model of how it can be done should say something. There is no "Bail Out" of financial institutions here nor do we have the Mortgage fiasco like you have.


Camac.

OK. Just remember NOTHING is perfect.

Posted by: Camac 25-Feb-2009, 08:53 AM
NovaScotian;

I the least of all.



Camac.

Posted by: SCShamrock 25-Feb-2009, 06:40 PM
QUOTE (Camac @ 20-Feb-2009, 11:40 AM)
I do not like extremes. Like the majority of Canadians I am Centrist. A little Conservatism a little Liberalism but let's keep it balanced.



Camac.

Hi.

That idea may be good. At the least it leaves you feeling all warm and fuzzy. However, exactly who gets to decide which is conservative and which is liberal? We're not talking exactitudes here, as in black or white, night or day, male or female. There is no formula for determining conservative or liberal speech, so regulation of such would be science of the subjective. Seems to me that way back when the Bill of Rights was written, someone knew that regulating speech teeters atop a slippery slope.

Posted by: Antwn 26-Feb-2009, 03:09 PM
QUOTE (SCShamrock @ 25-Feb-2009, 07:40 PM)
Seems to me that way back when the Bill of Rights was written, someone knew that regulating speech teeters atop a slippery slope.

Exactly. Madison called the first amendment the most valuable on the whole list. His version of the Bill of Rights expanded upon freedom of speech, but the Congress edited the language to the version we have. More detail:

http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/zenger/freespeech.htm

As I understand the Fairness Doctrine when it was formerly instituted by the FCC, it only required that broadcasters who provided an opinion also provide an alternate or opposing opinion. I'm wondering in what way this would be considered a threat to freedom of speech. I'm not addressing this to anyone's specific post, just wondering in general. No curtailment of speech is implied, just a requirement that both sides of an issue be presented. This is often done in a rather slipshod way on news programs like Sanchez on CNN or Bill O'reilly on Fox - though sometimes they become shouting matches where parties talk over one another and no one's view is heard, but to me you'd be hard pressed to argue any curtailment of speech in a legal sense. I don't think there's any legal limitations against some television blowhard's lack of decorum.

Posted by: Patch 26-Feb-2009, 04:09 PM
The problem, if any, would be that liberal talk radio does not have the audience that conservative talk radio has. Thus, if a venue had two hours (profitable) of conservative radio broadcast, they would have to run two hours of liberal (unprofitable) broadcast.

The courts ruled that the fairness doctrine applied only to "free" air time which is as it should be.

"Paid" time is covered by freedom of speech. Otherwise, Obama should have been restricted to no more air time than McCain! Such was NOT the case.

As to the importance of the amendments, ALL are equally important. #'s 1 and 2 go hand in hand. Without #2, #1 will quickly follow!! We already lost ground on #1 with McCains "Incumbent protection act" which bush signed into law with the admission that it was a violation of free speach. The supreme court then said it was such a "little" infringement that it could stand!!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: SCShamrock 26-Feb-2009, 07:53 PM
QUOTE (Antwn @ 26-Feb-2009, 04:09 PM)

As I understand the Fairness Doctrine when it was formerly instituted by the FCC, it only required that broadcasters who provided an opinion also provide an alternate or opposing opinion. I'm wondering in what way this would be considered a threat to freedom of speech.

Perhaps one of the ways around that would be for the broadcasters to include the disclaimer that "the following views and commentary do no necessarily reflect those of fill-in-the-blank...."

As to your question; if Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, colmbs, Leavy, or whoever else has an allotted amount of time on the air, and suddenly is forced to abbreviate their points of view to make room for a counterpoint, then their speech has been effectively limited. I don't read in the Constitution about the right to open dialogue, but free speech. Just my opinion.

Posted by: Antwn 27-Feb-2009, 05:54 PM
Patch: The failure of liberal ideologies to permeate the airwaves is their own fault for not having found anyone equally popular to the public, except maybe Bill Maher. Their inability to produce a popular show is not a free speech issue, nor will a legislative requirement produce one. I'm not advocating that.

Shamrock: I believe TV networks do use that disclaimer but only for special broadcasts not their regular fare. Trouble is, simply to say the opinions expressed do not reflect those of "whoever" doesn't provide an opposing viewpoint. It simply states the viewpoints presented are not those of the station ownership.

About your second point, its the public's airwaves, they do not belong to Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al, nor to Al Franken or Bill Maher. Its a matter of interpretation I suppose, but I don't think freedom of speech includes not cutting into Limbaugh's airtime. It may not be necessary either. Here's why -

As the quote from the White House website said, you can encourage expanded broadcaster ownership, which would theoretically provide a context for increased diversity of views. This was previously achieved by FCC regulation. You don't need to limit the length of anyone's show. No broadcaster would stand for that, not so much because of free speech as the loss of copious revenues. You can however limit the amount of stations a corporation owns and the number of frequencies they control, as was the case prior to deregulation. Deregulation stimulated a feeding frenzy and the biggest sharks prevailed, which was great for their stockholders but not necessarily in the public's interest. Another interpretation of free speech in a modern context is not just a persons right to express a viewpoint without suppression, but the public's right to have airwaves they own free from control by a very small cabal of broadcasters who limit viewpoints expressed. I believe all major media is owned and controlled by 5 or 6 corporations.

By the way, I'm not advocating the Fairness Doctrine necessarily because I don't know what it would entail. I'm mainly trying to understand the panic and bring some other ideas to bear. Neither political party is beyond compromising principle for political expediency when they can get away with it. I'm just wondering to what degree the free speech threat is real or exaggerated in this situation. Surely it will depend on how the details of a law pan out, should one be drafted to begin with.

Posted by: Patch 27-Feb-2009, 08:20 PM
QUOTE (Antwn @ 27-Feb-2009, 07:54 PM)
Patch: The failure of liberal ideologies to permeate the airwaves is their own fault for not having found anyone equally popular to the public, except maybe Bill Maher. Their inability to produce a popular show is not a free speech issue, nor will a legislative requirement produce one. I'm not advocating that.


I didn't mean to imply unfairness in "paid" air time. Limbaugh has a larger and more dedicated listening audience than Franken. Consequently sponsors pay more per 15 sec. than on a show with less listeners. That is just a fact and if Democrats were more loyal to their talk personalities, the situation would be different. That you can not legislate!

However, the actual fairness doctrine pertained to "free" time given to a political candidate. If the Democrat got a free 15 min segment in support on the evening news, that broadcaster was obligated to to provide 15 min free in an equal time slot to the Republican candidate. It meant that a broadcaster could not support one candidate over another.

It was never intended to curtail free enterprise in programing. That would be a true violation of the first amendment. That would require another amendment to the Comstitution.

Slàinte,    

Patch    




Posted by: SCShamrock 28-Feb-2009, 12:18 AM
Antwn,

I will admit that when you mentioned "public airwaves" and "the public's right to have airwaves they own" you lost me completely. I honestly have no knowledge of airwave ownership, and do not understand how it factors into any fairness doctrine or other governmentally regulated broadcast.

Just got laid off from work today, so with my spare time I vow to learn more about it so I can articulate my thoughts from an understanding of the facts. What I can say, and the point seems to be rather moot, is that from what I do understand, many in government would like to silence a lot of the speech we can indulge in listening to today. Obama himself even admonished his congress, directing them to not listen to Limbaugh. So the desire to silence some voices is undeniably present. The fear comes in where their willingness to meet that end means government placing restrictions or requiring certain criteria. Ok, enough said. Let me study. wink.gif

Posted by: MacEoghainn 28-Feb-2009, 09:00 AM
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iZo8HqKUQ5LkGkTf0CiQtS7WQlQQD96JG0PO4

QUOTE
The Senate voted Wednesday to bar federal regulators from reimposing a policy.......The 87-11 vote added the measure as an amendment to a bill giving District of Columbia residents a vote in the Houses.


This amendment to this Un-Constitutional attempt by the Democrats to give DC a voting representative in the House of Representatives (with the ultimate plan being to give DC two US senators also) was probably meant as a posion pill for the bill. Since the Democrats have no intention of ever passing anything called the "Fairness Doctrine" this backfired on the Republicans.

QUOTE
Before the vote, the Senate approved by 57-41 a parallel amendment by Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., restating existing law that federal regulators would work to promote diversity in media ownership and that the DeMint provision would not take away FCC authority to ensure that broadcasters meet their obligations to operate in the public interest.


The quote above is an indication of how the Dems plan to effectively reinstate the effect of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually using the words "Fairness Doctrine".


Posted by: englishmix 28-Feb-2009, 11:39 PM
Yes, its absolutely appalling, and... clearly unconstitutional.

Posted by: Antwn 01-Mar-2009, 03:10 PM
QUOTE (MacEoghainn @ 28-Feb-2009, 10:00 AM)
The quote above is an indication of how the Dems plan to effectively reinstate the effect of the "Fairness Doctrine" without actually using the words "Fairness Doctrine".

How is restating an existing law a new threat to freedom of speech?

Posted by: MacEoghainn 01-Mar-2009, 05:53 PM
QUOTE (Antwn @ 01-Mar-2009, 04:10 PM)
How is restating an existing law a new threat to freedom of speech?

I know this is confusing to many, but by whom and how laws are interpreted and enforced has just as much, if not more, affect on their enforcement. There is nothing preventing the current Congress and Administration from adding to the existing laws by legislation or Presidential order.


"But you must remember, my fellow-citizens, that eternal vigilance by the people is the price of liberty, and that you must pay the price if you wish to secure the blessing. It behooves you, therefore, to be watchful in your States as well as in the Federal Government." -- Andrew Jackson, Farewell Address, March 4, 1837

"A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both." -- James Madison

Posted by: Patch 01-Mar-2009, 06:18 PM
It is 'expanding" an existing law.

Slàinte,    

Patch    




Posted by: SCShamrock 02-Mar-2009, 03:37 PM
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.


If Washington creates any new legislation or twists any current legislation that does anything to abridge freedom of speech, then it is guilty of violating the constitution and therefor should be condemned via all appropriate channels, the first of which being our freedom of speech.

Posted by: Patch 02-Mar-2009, 03:56 PM
It falls to the supreme court and they have already upheld the mccain finegold encumbent protection act which curtails free speech prior to an election. They said it was "just a little violation of the first amendment. and they let it stand"

I am afraid there is NO such thing as a little violation of any part of the Constitution which is acceptable!!

People are distracted now by an economy which is tanking faster each day. That may cause things to be put in place that would not happen under other circumstances.

Watch the little news bits for things that are happening. This administration is not adept at keeping secrets yet!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Antwn 02-Mar-2009, 07:17 PM
QUOTE (Patch @ 02-Mar-2009, 04:56 PM)
I am afraid there is NO such thing as a little violation of any part of the Constitution which is acceptable!!

 

I agree with this statement, though I think its premature to assume that restating existing law threatens free speech. The language used to describe what this law is meant to accomplish is so vague that it doesn't seem to me that you can interpret it to mean anything specific:

".....that federal regulators would work to promote diversity in media ownership and that the DeMint provision would not take away FCC authority to ensure that broadcasters meet their obligations to operate in the public interest."

This however is clear, from the Associated Press:

"But DeMint said it was still necessary to get in writing a guarantee that the government would not apply quotas or guidelines to programming."

"House Republicans have introduced similar language to prevent the FCC from implementing a new version of the Fairness Doctrine."

Guess we'll have to see what actually transpires.

Posted by: Patch 02-Mar-2009, 08:41 PM
I am waiting and watching but my confidence in this administration is fading fast.

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Posted by: Dogshirt 02-Mar-2009, 08:49 PM
QUOTE
".....that federal regulators would work to promote diversity in media ownership and that the DeMint provision would not take away FCC authority to ensure that broadcasters meet their obligations to operate in the public interest."



I would LIKE to think that this would break up Clearchannel and other monopolistic groups that have taken control of the airways, but I'm pretty sure that isn't what they have in mind!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Dogshirt 02-Mar-2009, 08:54 PM
QUOTE
I am waiting and watching but my confidence in this administration is fading fast.

Slàinte,   

Patch   


The ONLY confidence I ever had in this admin was that it would ruin the U.S. as we know it. And they are living up to it every day!


beer_mug.gif

Posted by: Patch 02-Mar-2009, 09:32 PM
I didn't vote for him and didn't want to see him win.

This is off topic but I just got an alert from GOA indicating that the DC gun ban repeal passed the senate 62-36. Pelosi has vowed to stop it in the house. Do you suppose the political parasites are getting worried? All the pressure possible on ones reps. would really help!!

Slàinte,    

Patch    

Powered by Invision Power Board (https://www.invisionboard.com)
© Invision Power Services (https://www.invisionpower.com)