Fairness Doctrine

[Good Luck]

The simple soloution to all of this. Pass a law where the pundits of all types face legal responsibility for what they say. They can be legally punish for saying lies and distortions.
Personal accountability and responsibility.

And not with just piddly fines but banishment from broadcasting for a period of time.
For broadcasting lies.

All four major broadcast companies would be bankrupt in a week, while Rush & Sean would still be on. Why? Because they do not claim to be news outlets while the big four do.

Or do you plan on banning opinion that differs from your view of "truth"?

 

[cawacko]

All four major broadcast companies would be bankrupt in a week, while Rush & Sean would still be on. Why? Because they do not claim to be news outlets while the big four do.

Or do you plan on banning opinion that differs from your view of "truth"?

Well exactly, he wants no one to speak any opinion on the radio. He wants all voices to be shut down. Just say Ronald Reagan andF see the different opinions of whether he was successful or not. Who is going to be the government entity that decides it?

Who knew old liberal dudes in Kentucky wanted to shut down free speech like that guy does? Fortunately whether you agree or disagree with Dano politicly he allows everyone's opinion on this board.

Sorry uscitizen he does not practice censorship like you wish the U.S. government would.

 

[Good Luck]

What I find amazing (and sad) is how the liberal movement has been taken over by these government worshipping totalitarians. Their egocentrism is so extreme they honestly believe they alone understand the "truth", and therefore it is justifiable to shut down any and all opposing opinion.

They blast Bush for what he has done to the nation, then turn around and propose complete destruction of the principles this nation is founded on.

 

[evince]

the fairness doctrine would apply to everyone.

If someone talks shit about Rush he can demand airtime on their show to defend himself.

What will end is the lies. If you air LIES and someone has proof that what you said is a lie then you get some of their airtime to show the facts.

I sure can see why the right hates that idea.

 

[cawacko]

the fairness doctrine would apply to everyone.

If someone talks shit about Rush he can demand airtime on their show to defend himself.

What will end is the lies. If you air LIES and someone has proof that what you said is a lie then you get some of their airtime to show the facts.

I sure can see why the right hates that idea.

Wow, that is some unbelievable spin to justify not being able to compete in the marketplace.

 

[Good Luck]

It's not about countering lies. Saying so is itself a lie.

It's about being whiny little children because their message is not popular enough to command a dedicated audience.

But totalitarians, by necessity, resort to lies to justify their policies.

Again, I invite all of you who want a liberal base political talk show of the type of Limbaugh, then either buy a broadcast station, or buy a time slot on a broadcast station and air your show. The time is available if you want to PAY for it. I'll even renew my promise to listen/view it every time it is on for a minimum of one month.

But don't think you have some kind of right to DEMAND (through government intervention) time paid for by others. That not only makes you totalitarians, but cheap assed thieves as well.

As far as Rush (or others) defending themselves against inaccurate rhetoric, they neither need nor want "fairness doctrine" time. They have their own show and can spend the entire length of their show countering lies of the left.

[tongue in cheek] In fact that is exactly what they claim to be doing. [/tongue in cheek]

 

[uscitizen]

All four major broadcast companies would be bankrupt in a week, while Rush & Sean would still be on. Why? Because they do not claim to be news outlets while the big four do.

Or do you plan on banning opinion that differs from your view of "truth"?

My view of the truth is irrelevbant. the real truth is what matters.
The real truth is all that ever should matter.

 

[Good Luck]

My view of the truth is irrelevbant. the real truth is what matters.
The real truth is all that ever should matter.

I asked you about banning OPINION. And you come back with your high-sounding (but SO obviously mis-aimed) rhetoric about "your truth" vs "real truth."

Answer the frigging question.

Hannity, Limbaugh and the like are political talk shows whose purpose is the expression of OPINION. Do you plan to shut them down if their OPINION differs from what you call "real truth"?

And what do you want to bet that your view of truth just happens to coincide exactly with "real" truth, whereas others' does not?

 

[Socrtease]

Just a brief Reminder:

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.

Opinions are covered unless they are blatantly libelous or slanderous and thanks to Fawell v. Hustler, if you are public figure the standard for both of those is higher. The "fairness" doctrine is a "law" that seeks to abridge free speech.

 

[Cancel7]

I don't know much about the fairness doctrine. It's before my time. I'm certainly open to counter-arguments, but after reading this thread and thinking about it, my instinct says; it's obsolete. I can see the need for this back in the 80's or even 90's. But the world has changed. The internet has changed it. And if you look around you'll see that the left is winning that battle. Watch what happens when the right attempts to take down Obama with their 1992 game-plan, lead by Rush Limbaugh. lol. Forget about it.

I really have very little interest in battling what Rush limbaugh is saying on his show everyday and forcing him to put people on to prove he's lying. If hes on the air, he's lying. But the fact is, he's not relevant.

 

[Cancel4]

We should shut FAUX news down

 

[Good Luck]

Just a brief Reminder:

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.

Opinions are covered unless they are blatantly libelous or slanderous and thanks to Fawell v. Hustler, if you are public figure the standard for both of those is higher. The "fairness" doctrine is a "law" that seeks to abridge free speech.

They already prohibit the free exercise of religion if you happen to work in schools or government offices. (As if people expressing their opinions - which Christianity teaches as a Christian duty - should be forbidden under the prohibition "MAKE NO LAW")

Abridging free speech under specified circumstances that has nothing to do with yelling fire in a crowded theater is the next logical step.

Attacks on the 1st amendment are nothing new. Attacks on the 2nd is so old it is not even considered a valid issue by liberals. They threw out the 10th a long time ago, and only use the 9th when it is their favor. Obama himself voted to weaken the 4th after promising not to. Plan on his promises about Patriot Act to go the wayside also. And his followers will kiss his ass for doing so.

The "Party of the People" is not about liberty any more.

 

[Socrtease]

They already prohibit the free exercise of religion if you happen to work in schools or government offices. (As if people expressing their opinions - which Christianity teaches as a Christian duty - should be forbidden under the prohibition "MAKE NO LAW")

Abridging free speech under specified circumstances that has nothing to do with yelling fire in a crowded theater is the next logical step.

Attacks on the 1st amendment are nothing new. Attacks on the 2nd is so old it is not even considered a valid issue by liberals. They threw out the 10th a long time ago, and only use the 9th when it is their favor. Obama himself voted to weaken the 4th after promising not to. Plan on his promises about Patriot Act to go the wayside also. And his followers will kiss his ass for doing so.

The "Party of the People" is not about liberty any more.

This is bullshit christian whining. YOU as a Christian can pray all you want at work or at school so long as you do not interfere with other people. What is, and should be forbidden is the state through the principal, teachers or football coaches organizing a structured prayer to held at a specific time. The state is forbidden to be involved in that. I know how horrible it must be that we can't all be told to bow our head and say words to an imaginary friend that not all of us or our children believe in but I am sure that you right wing totalitarians will work your collect jesus loving asses off to change that. You conservatives don't believe that the 9th Amendment mean ANYTHING. I actually got to have a conversation with Judge Alex Kozinski after a speech he gave in Kansas, I asked why the 9th amendement is not relied upon more to expand personal freedoms, he asked me, quite sarcastically where that would end. I told him, quite seriously, "With Freedom."

 

[Good Luck]

Right. It goes beyond not allowing the organization of a prayer time and you fucking well know it. Teachers are DISMISSED for expressing a religious opinion in the class room. No prayer, just an opinion, and they are tossed out on their ass. Since when is a teacher expressing an opinion about religion "making a law"? A judge cannot even, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, decorate his courtroom with a monument to the Ten Commandments. Since when is THAT "making a law"?

Fact is, that is not interpreting the constitution as written. It is ADDING a new definition to the intent of the constitution.

You anti-religion types push religion into the background as much as you possibly can, and then wonder why religious people feel just a bit persecuted? Try putting the shoes on the other foot and think about it for a while. If you were forbidden to express YOUR views on religion in aa public venue, I'd bet you'd feel just a bit persecuted, also. But only the religious have that stricture. I have personally witnessed over the past 10-15 years, in multiple places as military personnel tend to be moved around, teachers express the opinion that there is no God in their classrooms. But they get away with it. Teachers who say there IS a God in a classroom setting are censured at least, and not uncommon to fire them.

And then there is the case of the school district in CA that SPECIFICALLY set aside a period of time each day, FOR PRAYER, according to Islamic law, in order to accommodate the large Islamic population in their schools. And leftists from all over DEFENDED the act.

But Christians have no reason to feel persecuted, do they?

In short, you full of shit on this topic. The left have taken an anti-religion agenda (focussed most on Christianity) and pushed it WAY beyond where the founders intended when they placed a limit on governments' interference with religion.

 

[Cancel4]

Look at history, Christians made slavery and slaughtered Muslims in the Crusades and Jews in the Holocaust. No wonder they are hated, they pretend everyone else is wrong

 

[Socrtease]

Right. It goes beyond not allowing the organization of a prayer time and you fucking well know it. Teachers are DISMISSED for expressing a religious opinion in the class room. No prayer, just an opinion, and they are tossed out on their ass. Since when is a teacher expressing an opinion about religion "making a law"? A judge cannot even, AT HIS OWN EXPENSE, decorate his courtroom with a monument to the Ten Commandments. Since when is THAT "making a law"?

Fact is, that is not interpreting the constitution as written. It is ADDING a new definition to the intent of the constitution.

You anti-religion types push religion into the background as much as you possibly can, and then wonder why religious people feel just a bit persecuted? Try putting the shoes on the other foot and think about it for a while. If you were forbidden to express YOUR views on religion in aa public venue, I'd bet you'd feel just a bit persecuted, also. But only the religious have that stricture. I have personally witnessed over the past 10-15 years, in multiple places as military personnel tend to be moved around, teachers express the opinion that there is no God in their classrooms. But they get away with it. Teachers who say there IS a God in a classroom setting are censured at least, and not uncommon to fire them.

And then there is the case of the school district in CA that SPECIFICALLY set aside a period of time each day, FOR PRAYER, according to Islamic law, in order to accommodate the large Islamic population in their schools. And leftists from all over DEFENDED the act.

But Christians have no reason to feel persecuted, do they?

In short, you full of shit on this topic. The left have taken an anti-religion agenda (focussed most on Christianity) and pushed it WAY beyond where the founders intended when they placed a limit on governments' interference with religion.

There should be no time set aside for prayer by anyone at anytime in a classroom. Teachers have no business talking about relgion in class unless the class is about comparative religions. I don't care if kids pray at school and there is no law against it. Kids have religious organizations in schools and kids pray before tests all the time. What I don't understand at all is this "need" on the part of ANYONE to talk about their relgion during class or work hours at all. I know for a fact that Catholics have mass every day at least twice a day. Baptists have church on Sunday and Wednesday, and others have church during different times of the week. This need to constantly be talking about and praying to go on school and work time is a little obsessive.

 

[Good Luck]

There should be no time set aside for prayer by anyone at anytime in a classroom. Teachers have no business talking about relgion in class unless the class is about comparative religions. I don't care if kids pray at school and there is no law against it. Kids have religious organizations in schools and kids pray before tests all the time. What I don't understand at all is this "need" on the part of ANYONE to talk about their relgion during class or work hours at all. I know for a fact that Catholics have mass every day at least twice a day. Baptists have church on Sunday and Wednesday, and others have church during different times of the week. This need to constantly be talking about and praying to go on school and work time is a little obsessive.

Do you include stating or openly implying the opinion that there is no God in your prohibition from talking religion in the classroom? Because the courts systems certainly do not.

The "fact" you know about the Catholic faith is, at best, misunderstood. Mass is held daily, sometimes twice per day depending on the size of the building. Multiple Masses per day are to accommodate a congregation that is too large to fit in the building all at once. Some larger churches need 4-5 Sunday celebrations to accommodate the entire congregation. That will get worse in the near future, as fewer young men are choosing to be priests.

As for attendance, that is an entirely different matter. Catholics are only expected to attend Mass on holy days of obligation. Holy days of obligation are all Sundays, and certain other days important to the Catholic faith, such as Christmas, Ash Wednesday, All Souls Day (the day after Halloween), and a few others. Daily attendance is strictly voluntary, and only a small percentage do so.

As far as your understanding of why people worship, or to the degree they worship, that is the way of those without religious faith. Only the Holy Spirit can bring such understanding, and only a true desire for perfect faith brings the Holy Spirit. But, simply put, people of faith put their trust in God, and as such ask God for assistance with the challenges of every day life. Accepting God into our lives gives us greater strength, sometimes simply by finding serenity in the faith that God's will is best for us, to face our challenges.

Those without faith often have the opinion that placing one's faith in God for serenity and strength to be a weakness. But when one has never had faith, that is like the blind criticizing a poet's description of a rainbow.