Yeah, I acknowledged I was being a tad slow; how thoughtful and neccesary of you to point it out again. Are you always like this, or are you just a special kind of ninny to people you don't know?
Fairness Doctrine? Are you kidding me?
- Thread starter Chapdog
- Start date
Yeah, I acknowledged I was being a tad slow; how thoughtful and neccesary of you to point it out again. Are you always like this, or are you just a special kind of ninny to people you don't know?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Immie;
They haven't excluded TV....they excluded cable TV which is a subscription service. Because it is a subscription service the Fairness Doctrine would not apply. TV is still broadcast digitally over the public air waves. You just need a digital TV to convert the signal or a converter box if your TV is analog. Same with Radio. Satellite radio, such as XFM, is excluded because it's a subscription service. Radio broadcast over the public airwaves would not be excluded.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Are you familiar with the SCOTUS case on George Carlins 7 dirty words routine?
Immanuel
Junior Member
Okay, but that is still mighty convenient for them isn't it?
And please don't think I am blaming the liberals/Democrats or making a stink about what they are trying to do, given the opportunity, I am fairly confident that the conservatives/Republicans would snap at an opportunity to silence their detractors.
I'm opposed to the F.D. I believe in Freedom of Speech (yes, even for you liberals
) and I believe the doctrine is an attempt to limit free speech as well as the government to control the message that gets out.Immie
uscitizen
Villified User
digital TV is still broadcast over the "public" airwaves. Just in a different format and using less bandwith so portions of the spectrum can be allocated for other uses.
Sorry Mottly, read your reply after this post.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Okay, but that is still mighty convenient for them isn't it?
And please don't think I am blaming the liberals/Democrats or making a stink about what they are trying to do, given the opportunity, I am fairly confident that the conservatives/Republicans would snap at an opportunity to silence their detractors.
I'm opposed to the F.D. I believe in Freedom of Speech (yes, even for you liberals
Immie
Oh you're dead on right there. Since I'm fairly well read and don't get my information solely from TV (Remember that Hilarious last movie Peter Sellers made "Being There"?) it's a much ado about nothing issue to me as I don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or Air America.
Traditionally, when it comes disseminating political discourse (or propaganda, call it what you will) Republicans have had a huge advantage over Democrats in that they ussually have vastly more money and can purchase much more air time/programing to disseminate their message.
Democrats, who were in power, felt that in order to level the playing field came up with the Fairness Doctrine. It was a legal regulation that will always be hugely unpopular to the political party which has more money. But it can only be applied to the public air waves. Having said that, the Fairness Doctrine was pretty much mooted by advent of cable/satellite subscription networks. Today, since most people have cable TV and satellite radio is in it's infancy, the Fairness doctrine would mostly impact talk radio.
The Fairness Doctrine is not a limit on Free Speech. It just requires, as a public service, those who broadcast on the public airwaves to give equal time to both political parties. Well when it's one of the political parties that's doing the broadcasting, you can see where they wouldn't like that and I don't blame them, I wouldn't like it either if I was a partisan. But it is hardly an abridgment of free speech rather it is a public service regulation, of the public air waves, similar to the prohibition of pornography or profane language transmitted via the public air waves.
Since I don't watch network TV or listen to talk radio I could give a shit less about the fairness doctrine. Republicans are pissed off about the Fairness Doctrine because it negates a distinct political advantage for them. Well that shit happens when you lose elections but it is not an abridgement of Free Speech.
Immanuel
Junior Member
I must disagree with you Motley. It is a limit on Free Speech. The owners of the networks have the right to broadcast the programs they want to broadcast. They pay huge licensing fees to allow them to do so and they make money by broadcasting what their audience wants to listen to. If, under the Fairness Doctrine, they are forced to provide programming that no one wants to listen to they lose money. In effect the Fairness Doctrine is an attempt to force these broadcasters out of business.
As far as I am concerned those Democrats who incorrectly felt the playing field needed to be leveled do not have the right to limit the speech of the broadcasters. The truth of the matter is that the liberal Democrats do a much better job of getting their message out using TV than the conservatives do using talk radio. If they truly wanted to level the playing field they'd limit what is on TV not what is on talk radio.
They are not seeking to even things up, they seem to be more interested in eliminating all competition and it just might work.
Immie
Minister of Truth
Practically Perfect
Yeah, FCC v. Pacifica Foundation, which is not relevant to the Fascist Doctrine, and fairly stupid in-and-of itself.
Well when I posted it I hadn't read through the rest of the thread, where everyone else figured it out and let you know. My bad
Good Luck
New member
Gee whillickers, wally. Would you feel better if I just lumped you under the generic term of totalitarian? You are the one equating the extremist political philosophy you dislike to pornography, but do not like being called a fascist?
There are many aspects to the fascist type of government. One of those aspects is the command of information flow. Since you plainly advocate strong government control over information flow, that makes you fascist in that aspect. Remove all dissenting opinion from your own. Funny how you claim to "say no to fascism" then support one of its primary tenets.
Of course, other totalitarian type governments limit information to the public. But when you take all the current economic plans, raping the 2nd amendment, escalating conflict in the M.E. even as we (supposedly) withdraw from Iraq, and add it to the plan to control information and speech, then fascism most closely matches the types of ideas you currently support.
And what is with the "republicans have the shows because they have more money" nonsense? Are you truly that totally ignorant? The relative wealth of the republican party is itself a fucking lie. (do you base all your arguments on lies?) 1st, llok at the areas that vote heavily republican - not exactly examples of conspicuous consumption, are they? 2nd, look at the personal wealth of the U.S. Senate. See who is on top? See which party take up most of the top 10? 3rd - Care to revisit the relative monies spent on the most recent presidential election? Who outspent who, and by what RECORD amount - and bragged about it the whole time, 4 scant years after crying like 2 year olds about how unfair it is to outspend you political opponent? Cram your economic lies (and your total unmitigated hypocrisy) up your fascist fucking ass.
And the relative wealth argument is pure BS anyway, since every single popular conservative talk show program you rail against MAKES A PROFIT. Who cares how rich the station owner is, since he does not need to subsidize the programs in question. The programs make money, so they don't need the fictional greater wealth of republicans in order to exist. And who is the audience? Well, looking at the demographics, it's the same ones who live in the rural states. You know, the farmers, ranchers etc, most of whom do NOT represent any great accumulations of personal wealth. If liberal talk shows don't make a profit, then why don't you brainless fucks find a venue that IS profitable, rather than try to get your beloved totalitarian government to shove your crap down people's throats using conservative venues?
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
LOL Not a fair comparison at all. Peter Sellers character was way smarter than Bush! LOL
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
What you're saying would be well and fine in the private sector. But it is private companies using the publics air waves. This is no differant than any other requirement of public broadcasters to provide public service messages.
Do the Democrats seek political advantage by regulating an even playing ground on the public air waves? Well hell yes they do but you're back to what I said earlier, only in reverse. That's what happens when you win elections.
When Republicans won elections they had their say and now we have to put up with Joseph Goebbel's students and hearing extremist like Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage are disturbing to a hell of a lot more people than just those on the political left but it's back again to my point. That's what happens when you win elections.
Mott the Hoople
Sweet Jane
Jesus, this is just one strawman after strawman. Who the hell equated Republican propaganda with pornography? It sure as hell wasn't me? And who the hell is advocating government control of information? Another fucking strawman. The Government has the right to regulate the public air waves and that's an objective fact wether you like it or not or advicate it or not
And you must be an utter ignoramus about fascism. I don't see any liberal propaganda out lets adopting Joseph Goebble's propaganda methods as right wing radio and Faux News has so readily (and dangerously) done. But hey, what the hell, if you want to get your information from people using the system that brought Hitler to power that's your perogative but where I come from it's called evil.
cawacko
Well-known member
Just my opinion but I think its a shame you equate winning elections with shutting down speech that you don't like.
I don't mean to mischaracterize your position if I am here but you seem to be making the same argument that uscitizen makes which is if it weren't people like Limbaugh and Hannity no one would vote Republican as people are being brain washed by them. You are an example of this yourself. You say you are a former Republican. Were you one at the time because you agreed with more of the party's positions than you did the Democrats? Or was it because you were brainwashed?
Fundamentally I do not understand this idea of wanting to regulate and control speech like you want to.
Well when I posted it I hadn't read through the rest of the thread, where everyone else figured it out and let you know. My bad
Everyone else? You meant a single poster of course and only use an exageration to be a ninny again
Immanuel
Junior Member
All that is well and good, well not good, but it is the citizens of the U.S. of A. that should be fighting against these attempts by the government to strip us of our rights even the rights of people we do not agree with.
And before you say it, yes, I have been against Bush's Patriot Act since day one.
Immie
Socrtease
Verified User
I still can't believe anyone that calls themselves progressive supports anything like the fairness doctrine. It is short sighted and completely ignores the need to sell advertising to keep radio stations operating. If the liberal show isn't good enough to command an audience then it should not be on the radio.